In ages past rulers were not only makers of law but interpreters of law and dispensers of justice as well. Subjects would journey to the place where the ruler was domiciled, i.e. the “court”, in order to present petitions, to settle disputes and to seek his decision on a variety of matters brought before him. A court was thus a) the dwelling of a sovereign ruler and his retinue and b) the place where justice is administered.
Later, as civilization became more complex, the authority to determine controversies and to dispense justice was delegated to an organized body, with defined powers, meeting at certain times and places for the hearing and decision of cases and other matters brought before it. We still refer to both these organized bodies and the places where they meet as courts. Now as then, however, a court’s power to adjudicate is NOT inherent but derived – from the sovereign!
Who then is the sovereign? You are! You were born free and unless you have KNOWINGLY, INTENTIONALLY and VOLUNTARILY signed away your sovereignty and your inalienable rights and agreed to be the subject/slave of another man or group of men, you are still a Sovereign, although, most likely, you are completely unaware of it because this fact is intentionally hidden from you!
The authority of a court is derived from sovereign men and women – people like you and me! A Court needs standing in order to act on a matter. For the court to have standing to take up a matter one party must make an accusation against another. The accusation must be backed up by an affidavit, i.e. a statement sworn under oath, otherwise it lacks validity to engage the court.
So the first point about courts to note is that it is people who actually create the court! Even when a person has created the court by filing a writ, complaint or claim the court is not able to do as it pleases in taking the case forward. More people power is needed first. In order to become the arbiter in the dispute/controversy both parties must agree to accept the court’s ruling. If one of the parties refuses to authorize the court’s action then it is disempowered. The court CANNOT lawfully proceed!
The second point to note about courts is: THEY ARE NOTHING TO BE AFRAID OF. We, the people, have the power! The very fact that the judiciary feels the need to employ intimidation and manipulation, misinformation, lies and subterfuge, denial of due process and other criminal practices, ought to tell anyone that they are well aware of the fact that they are essentially powerless.
Most people have been indoctrinated to see themselves as subject to the demands of the court and government officials, and therefore unable to resist the impositions, judgements and demands made by a court or government official.
Because agreement to the authority of the court is essential for the court to exercise authority over people a series of apparently authoritative processes has been put in place to intimidate and manipulate people into accepting the role of the court in their affairs. Such things as a summons, court order, judgement, penalty and fine carry the impression of authority but they are rarely worth the paper they are printed on. Did you know that a summons, for instance, is nothing more than an invitation/offer to enter into a contract with the court in order to do business? Invitations can be lawfully declined, can’t they? You bet!
Courtroom architecture and processes give people the impression that individuals have no real standing and that the court has all the authority. This really stands out when one views the Victorian Magistrates Court Virtual Courtroom on their website.
The images and video clips show the magistrate sitting high and above all, presiding over the whole realm of the court. The witness box appears like a small prison cell and it is seen as a tough place to be. The lawyers have the right to stand before the magistrate, but the real people, with the real issue to be resolved, are slumped in chairs in the background, as powerless ones, watching other people deliberate about their lives.
Court rooms are divided into two sections: a) the public gallery (where the audience sits and where the defendant waits until his case is called) and b) the area where the proceedings take place. The boundaries are always clearly marked by some sort of barrier. The two sections are connected either by a simple opening as shown below or an actual gate. Unfortunately, too few people are aware of the significance of this architecture. A look at the illustration below will show you what the legal fraternity is hiding from you:
The public gallery represents dry land. Here you are under the jurisdiction and protection of Common Law, also known as the Law of the Land. Under Common Law you are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty and furthermore, you have the inalienable right to trial by jury. The other part of the court room represents a sea-going vessel. Here you are under the jurisdiction of admiralty law, also known as the Law of the Sea. Things are topsy-turvy here: you are considered guilty unless you can prove your innocence and the right to trial by jury has been abolished.
Step from the the public gallery into the other part of the court room and you are considered to have boarded a ship; you now come under the jurisdiction of admiralty law, administered by the captain of the imaginary vessel, the magistrate/judge. This ship, however, is flying false colors, i.e. it is making itself out to be a lawful court when in reality it is nothing more than a commercial outfit operating for profit/plunder. To put it bluntly: you have fallen amongst pirates!
If you, from the safety of the public gallery and the protection of Common Law, unequivocally tell the magistrate/judge of a court of summary judgement that you do not consent to his/her jurisdiction – guess what? – s/he does not have jurisdiction! They will almost certainly attempt to manipulate you into thinking that you are misinformed. They may also threaten to have you arrested. That is nothing but more of their bluff and bluster. Stand your ground! You ARE free to walk out! If they touch you after you have denied consent in order to drag you into their jurisdiction they are committing a crime, i.e. ASSAULT, unless there is probable cause, i.e. you have committed a breach of the peace!
Another of the traps they might set for you is to threaten you with contempt of court. Do not fall for that! Contempt of court is an invention of the judiciary designed by them to remove themselves even further from the law than they already are. It allows them to do pretty much anything they fancy without fear of consequences – this device serves two purposes a) to gain control over anyone who challenges them and b) to weasel out of accepting liability for any unlawful conduct! Should that happen ask them: “Is this criminal or civil?”
A criminal offense needs to be based on an affidavit of probable cause (who was harmed? what is the harm done? what is the remedy sought?) A civil offense needs to be based on a contract. Needless to say they will not be able to produce either an affidavit or a contract to back up an offense that does not exist.
If you do not want to fall prey to pirates:
Never walk into a court room without witnesses.
Do not enter their jurisdiction by stepping from the public gallery onto their pirate ship.
Clearly and unequivocally deny them your consent to proceed.
Do not ever carry out ANY order or instruction (that will give them jurisdiction).
Do not allow them to touch you.
Do not fall for their “Contempt of Court” lie.
There are two types of courts: Common Law courts (de-jure courts) and Courts of Summary Judgement (de-facto courts). Courts of Summary Judgement require your CONSENT to have jurisdiction over you. The judiciary knows this, of course, but keeps it well hidden from you; they will often brazenly lie to you in order to prevent you from finding out this simple truth. In most cases, though, they employ manipulation to get jurisdiction. That is easy for them because you have been kept in the dark about your rights and you will walk right into their traps:
Here are a few examples of the traps they use:
“What is…/State your full name?”
“How do you plead? Guilty or not guilty?”
“Do you understand the charges against you?”
These questions or instructions sound innocuous, don’t they? But beware! State your name or move from the public gallery or answer YES to the question about charges and you are considered to have granted the court jurisdiction. Enter a plea, regardless of whether you plead GUILTY or NOT GUILTY – and you grant them jurisdiction! In fact, carry out any of their instructions and they acquire jurisdiction! Common Law courts operate with a jury; they are the only true courts – everything else is FRAUD (unless you have consented to be without a jury). Regardless of the nature of the offence you are charged with it is your inalienable right to be tried by a jury. Denying you this right is a crime!
There is NO way in the world I would ever entertain the idea of hiring a lawyer. Lawyers are officers of the court; their loyalty is to the court, NOT, I repeat NOT, to their clients. To put it crudely: your lawyer will hold your hand and console you while the court is raping you! Hire a lawyer and you are deemed to be a “ward” of the court, i.e. somebody not competent to manage his/her own affairs, such as a minor or a mentally disabled person. As a result of this diminished legal status the court will handle your affairs and woe to you, then!
The most important consideration for my wife and myself is this: we do not want to waste our precious time on fools and thugs. Our strategy is therefore quite simple: rather than enter a court in order to argue with the judiciary about the law and the merits of a case we deny them jurisdiction right from the start! This is the only strategy that we use and it works!
We have learnt from numerous dealings with courts and police, both in writing and in personal confrontations, that it is entirely useless to employ courtesy. True, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar but this approach will not work – these guys are not regular flies but dung beetles! Here is the skeleton of our approach:
We tell them in an affidavit well before the scheduled appearance in court, submitted in the form of registered mail with delivery confirmation, that they do NOT have nor will they get in personam jurisdiction. It is almost certain that they will ignore the affidavit. We are therefore prepared for the fact that they will go ahead with their kangaroo court proceedings.
If they know that they do not have jurisdiction, and if they know that we know why would they still continue? First of all, the lower levels of the judiciary do not necessarily know the law. Strange, but true! Furthermore, used to having their way they simply won’t accept that they are up against somebody who not only knows his rights but is also ready to assert them. They always assume that they can intimidate you into submission or manipulate you into granting jurisdiction unwittingly.
When our names are called we rise and remain standing! Some people make a show of not rising, arguing that the court will not show the same courtesy to them. We rise, not out of respect for the court, but for a far more practical reason: psychologically speaking, you enhance your presence and your impact by standing. Quite literally, we stand up for ourselves and our rights! We are also more visible to everybody in the room and at the same time we are now more or less level with the magistrate or judge who usually is placed a bit higher than everybody else. Last but not least it is also easier to be assertive in a standing position.
We do NOT shy away from interupting – rudely if it must be
We raise our voice – if necessary to shout the magistrate / judge down
Just think of the impression this makes on the audience: they see and hear somebody who fearlessly faces a court, denies jurisdiction, humiliates and embarrasses the court and walks away! In fact, I once had one man come up to me after I had walked out of the court room giving me the thumbs up and saying, with a broad smile: “Good show!” He may or may not be ready to do the same but this is one man who now knows that these scoundrels in fancy dress and fancy wigs are essentially nothing but powerless pathetic clowns and he is likely to talk to his friends about what he witnessed and they in turn....
We do NOT EVER cross the bar that separates the public gallery from the actual court; if we did we would be stepping from the jurisdiction and protection of Common Law, also known as the Law of the Land, into admiralty jurisdiction, or the Law of the Sea.
In the fantasy world of the legal fraternity you are considered to have boarded a ship if you cross the bar. Having crossed the bar you have lost the protection of Common Law and the captain (the magistrate or judge) of the imaginary vessel (a pirate ship), will deal with you according to the Law of the Sea. This captain, however, is nothing like the roguish but likeable and ultimately decent Pirate Captain Jack Sparrow; this captain will lie and steal and rape and cut your throat!
We deal with the court from the public gallery, i.e. from dry land, and always from the last row! They cannot physically force us to cross the bar! If they did they would be committing a breach of the peace, i.e. assault, a criminal offence. Neither can they arrest us to get us into their jurisdiction; without probable cause such an arrest is likewise a breach of the peace, a criminal offence.
After rising we announce that we are NOT the name that has just been called; our names are Bernard or Edith. We are agents for the legal fiction! We refuse instructions to come forward: they are really nothing more than invitations to board their ship and enter into their admiralty jurisdiction. We do not respond to being addressed as Mr or Mrs... We tell the magistrate/judge that we claim protection of Common Law and that we do not consent to his or her jurisdiction! Furthermore, we NEVER carry out any orders they may give; doing so would grant them jurisdiction.
We address the audience in the court room, asking this simple question: Does anybody here have a claim against me?
Note: Claims MUST be backed up by an affidavit of probable cause or sworn statement showing amongst other things: the breach of the peace for which you have been summonsed, the name of the plaintiff who must be a human being (not a legal fiction such as a government agency or police) and the nature and extent of the harm done to the plaintiff. Alternatively, the plaintiff needs to produce a lawful CONTRACT which you entered into knowingly and intentionally and which was subsequently not honored by you, thus causing the plaintiff harm.
Obviously, few cases meet those criteria. If you are up for driving without a license, for instance, ask yourself: What is the harm done? No harm was done to anyone! Is the plaintiff a human being or a legal fiction? The police officer who booked you is a human being but he has not been personally harmed, has he? He therefore has no case against you! The police, however, is a legal fiction and can neither make a claim nor sign an affidavit! Do you have a contract with police that obliges you to take out a drivers license? I don’t and neither do you!
To sum it up: without an AFFIDAVIT there is NO criminal case and without a CONTRACT there is NO civil case! We allow a few moments of silence to let anyone come forward who might have a genuine claim against us. If nobody comes forward (and there is, of course, never anybody with a valid claim) we wrap everything up with the following statement: “There is nobody here in this room who has a claim against me! My business here is finished!” We warn the court of the serious consequences of trying to arrest us when leaving. THEN WE WALK OUT !!! That’s it! That’s all! We do not look back and do not respond to anything more coming from the court.
I have posted Edith’s case of “obstructing police” on the loveforlife website: the link will get you there. You can read about the background of the case and you can listen to the audio recording which we made with our mobile . This recording will show you how our approach of denying them jurisdiction works in practice. Enjoy!