Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Establishing Standing and Jurisdiction in Court



Since your court summons uses your name in all capital letters, by admitting/consenting to the judge's presumption that you are the entity that they summonsed, you are accepting the most inferior standing possible, that of a non-living legal fiction i.e. the fictional corporate capitis diminutio maxima strawman version of you unknowingly created and entrusted to the state by your well-meaning mother when she registered you, her biological property, with the bureau of vital statistics at your birth.

So it is important to establish your standing as a living, breathing, flesh and blood man or woman (not a "person" which is a tricky legalese term that denotes inferior standing/status) by telling the judge for and on the record that you are a living, breathing flesh and blood man or woman here in the capacity of account administrator for the entity they summonsed, and not that fictional entity itself.



Another important matter is establishing jurisdiction which is another way the judge might try to assert authority over you. Below is an example of the method of establishing jurisdiction referenced in the first video above:

When you appear in court, the judge is using the jurisdiction of the Bar Society. We must assert that we are a living being, the blood flows; the flesh lives. So we say:

Sir, I’m here to establish, for and on the record, that I’m a living being, my blood flows; my flesh lives and I humbly ask for remedy.

At this point, it is remedy we seek. The judge now has to offer remedy or he is in dishonour; to avoid providing remedy and his own dishonour, he will leave the court. Whilst he has gone he does something in the background (In all likeliness a Masonic Ritual Prayer) When he comes back into court, he comes back in honour to regain jurisdiction under Maritime Admiralty Law. Our first statement must be to reiterate our standing:

Sir, to reiterate, for and on the record, I’m here to establish I’m a living being, my blood flows; my flesh lives, I humbly ask for cure and maintenance.

At this point it is cure and maintenance we seek. The judge now has to offer you cure and maintenance. (Admiralty), or he is in dishonour under this law; to avoid his dishonour again, he will leave the court for the second time. (Secretly changing identity to Ecclesiastic Minister) when he reappears, he is now an ecclesiastical priest, under Canon Law. (Vatican) Again, we must reiterate our standing:

Sir, to reiterate, for and on the record, I’m here to establish I’m a living being, my blood flows; my flesh lives, I am Sovereign and nothing stands between my self and the Divine.

It is only at this third standing that Sovereignty can be declared. As the judge has tried and failed at getting jurisdiction over you 3 times, he is in dishonour and his magic and can no longer work as a judge, The game is over for him. FOREVER. Ecclesiastical Dishonour is the only way to stop the judges and to assert our Sovereignty. We cannot assert this until the third standing. With this knowledge it is GAME OVER for all of them.

Read Original Article Here

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Awesome.

Nonoun.

Mediaforge said...

I am thinking of trying this in court for a no seat belt ticket. I was going to try to establish, that I am free, and have the right to act as I wish even though it is irresponsible and it is not anyone's right to dictate to me what good behavior is. No one has authority over me to tell me what to eat because it is bad for my health, hence the same with driving.

Any thoughts?

Eric Dubay said...

Court is your last stop in the legal process and should be avoided at all costs if possible. Defendants lose 95% of the time so the key is to be the prosecutor and/or be on the offense outside of court. This means claiming and serving notice of your own case against the officer and not consenting to their authority to call you to court for this until they, the public official (your employee!) prove that they have the right to force you to wear a seatbelt in the first place. Of course, they don't have the right to force you to wear a seatbelt, just as no one has the lawful right to force you to do anything against your will. So if you go on the offensive and don't let them slip you up into giving them standing, jurisdiction, honor, or consent, then your seat belt ticket is null and void and no officer will ever be able to charge you with that again. The problem is, it's their system, using their legalese language, with their minions, in their buildings etc. so it's purposely quite intimidating and requires education and practice to circumvent. This is clearly why we're not taught civics/law in public schools. A population strongly educated in law and passionate about freedom would be the establishment's worst nightmare.

Anonymous said...

Mediaforge,

I don't see the issue as being about having the right to do what you want irrespective of it's consequences. That's a straw man argument.

I see two issues:

1. The corrupt origins, purpose, and practice of the legal system.

2. Ashby's Law, developed in the field of cybernetics. It tells us that any effective control system must be more complex than the system it controls. In this context it means that any legal system, in practice, can only succeed by suppressing individuality within the community it seeks to control. That suppression, itself a form of violence, causes the multiplication of other problems. In other words legal systems don't solve problems within the community, they suppress, displace, and create new problems.

If we wish to reduce the conflicts within our communities we need a different social technology; rather than a conflict generating legal system we need a conflict reducing design system.

Nonoun

David said...

I wonder if most judges and attorneys are even aware of these things. If not, then it probably won't help you. For example, the judge could have just told the guy in this video he was in contempt and jailed him/fined him. Who would have done anything about it? Who would have corrected or even challenged a ruling like that? My guess is nobody.

One thing is for sure, a jury of your peers will not be aware of these things so claiming your sovereignty won't help in that regard.

Bottomline, this is a dangerous game created by people who have no problem ignoring the very laws they themselves created to confuse you.

It's also a full time job educating yourself and training yourself to assert your sovereignty. Not to mention the sacrifices you'll have to make as you separate yourself from all the conveniences of the "system".

However, it's great to get this information out. The more people who understand it the better. Thanks, Eric.

Eric Dubay said...

Thanks Nonoun. Great points. You're also correct David that some judges and lawyers might actually know less about sovereignty than you do.

For example, the judge could have just told the guy in this video he was in contempt and jailed him/fined him. Who would have done anything about it? Who would have corrected or even challenged a ruling like that?

Actually the judge tried to have the bailiffs arrest him, but he quickly warned he was out of their jurisdiction and touching him would result in assault charges against them. As for "who would have corrected or even challenged a ruling like that?" the answer is always the sovereign. The judge isn't above the law any more than you are, so if presented with an unlawful act/decision, you sue the judge, file a UCC lien against him, create and enforce a payment schedule, or take various other actions to pursue justice. Peace.

David said...

Thanks for the reply, Eric. This truly is great information.

I can imagine all the attorneys and the judge scrambling to figure out what the hell the sovereign is talking about when he brings his case to court regarding any such violation of his rights (being held in contempt for asserting his sovereignty, for example).

Ta Wan said...

Would it work to not be trained in all of this and just wing it with my spiritual mumbo-jumbo?

Judge: "Whatever judges say"

me: "I'm something appearig to your divicive mind and simply an illusion, a reflection of your ego-self and truly a refraction of the infinite one of which we both are. Do you want to call that God? I'd call it flobblewabble as today I fmmmmnaaaaa da beee blaaa. I'm infinity and you are too and we're here in this bizare configration of you beliving you're separate to me and me being an amuzed onlooker. No I'm not who you say I am, I've heard the name before to be honest though. I'm just a division of my mother who split in two like a bacteria over 30 years ago and I'm still quite entertained by how I split into this new woman/man thing that consumes coloured good and does brown smelly poo. So in answer to your question there is no one here of that name as there is no one here at all - but for an alive unseparable infinite dance of life and a few billion confused onlookers who have all, by nature of infinity, got stuck in bubbles and forgot they are a stream.

Mind if I go now? I'm going anyway, good bye"

-- hey, worst case scenario I'd get locked up for being insane and not for the the 'crime' then had my fake name self in for.

~Tawan

Eric Dubay said...

LOL. Love it.

Michael gaylan said...

I think there may be issues with this tactic. The Judge left the court room in the form of a recess. He did not abandon his position, he merely recessed so he could reconvene under Admiralty jurisdiction.

The "defendant" whether special appearance or General appearance, is not there when the judge returns, there will be a warrant for his arrest.

It would be nice to hear from him regarding the final outcome of his ordeal. What happened during the following weeks months.

When you go into court, yes you must "show" either generally or specially. And reserve all your unalienable rights, merely to have the moving party present an original claim or accusatory instrument. That is not possible if you are there "specially" because they can't charge a spirit, only the trust account bearing that NAME.

Anyhow, if he is around, it would be kind if he updated the community.

Cheers

Eric Dubay said...

You're right about that guy in the second video. The judge left to re-establish new standing and the guy left. But hey, the judge just up and left without saying anything, so why shouldn't he do the same? As you said, ultimately he'll just get a warrant put out for him and he'll have to come back and be tried again later. I'd like to hear how this case resolved as well. Peace

JCC said...

in the second video, did anyone notice that when the Judge stood up to leave .... HE BOWED TO HIM... this is a recognition of his authority as the Judge MUST remain in honor with his oath(s).

Phillip Michael said...

Glad someone noticed the judge "bowing" to a higher jurisdictiion. In this case, he was honorable. If it were a recess, he would have stated so for the record.

Shelly said...

I don't see where you give credit for that first video to Frank O'Collins-but that is indeed whom is speaking. Also do you have any information on John Quade and his progress on his legal findings before his untimely death or what has happened since? He was talking about establishing standing at law and teaching people how to become soveriegn successfully.Thanks I would really appreciate it.

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Shelly, thanks for the comment, I'm afraid I don't know anything about Frank O'Collins or John Quade though, sorry. Peace

denise cross said...

i am wondering if this will work later in the process after you have already given jurisdiction as a way to rescind it. like...the next time you go to court for the same thing. will this work in criminal/tort cases. also how do you remove yourself from the whole birth certificate and incompetency trap.

Micha'El said...

Yes I want to know also will this work after you have given up your rights and jurisdiction? Like when you go into be sentenced for a crime in criminal court and the judge says "do you have anything to say before I impose sentence?" Can you establish standing at that time?