Monday, October 3, 2011

How to Close Down a Court

Big thanks to Bernard for contacting me and writing the following excellent article about establishing sovereign standing, denying the court jurisdiction, and maintaining your rights as a freeman on the land:

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?”

“Come forward!”

“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 NEVER address the magistrate / judge with “Your Honour” or similar honorifics

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!


Anonymous said...

Usually, explanations about this subject are complex, difficult to follow, and place emphasis on knowing the magic words. This was clear, well focused, and easy to understand. Great post. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Will this work in the United States?

robbie said...

totally agree with anonymous, well laid out !!! thanx for posting eric, yes it does work i have done this a few times myself...i did first decide which cases i would use this with...
much peace
south africa

Anonymous said...

Nice post Eric. If you sign a ticket promising to appear in court, does that give the court jurisdiction?

Bernard said...


I'm Bernard. I wrote this article based on my experiences and my wife's.

If anyone has any questions feel free to contact me on

As for the US. Yes, this will work in any country where the legal system is based on Common Law, i.e. any country with historical connections to the former British empire. In fact I have an article writtem by a man in the US who has done the very same thing. If you are interested I can email it to you.

As for signing a ticket. Why not sign with the words "without prejudice"? That in effect cancels your signature. And in any case: since you are not being told by the cop that you are signing a hidden contract with the police and the court this contract is automatically null and void on the grounds that there was no full disclosure of the terms and conditions (one of the conditions that makes a contract binding and enforceable).


Eric Dubay said...

Yes, this works in all Common Law countries (and the basic tenets of not granting consent or jurisdiction are universal... we're all born equals and sovereign regardless of whether in a Common Law country or not).

Signing a ticket just acknowledges receipt of the ticket and does not in any way grant jurisdiction to the court. The same with a summons. It is merely a notice that someone has made a claim against you. It does not grant jurisdiction.

Eric Dubay said...

You beat me to it. Thanks again Bernard for your selfless service in exposing and helping people with this important information. Peace

Anonymous said...

This is incredibly enlightening, but one question. If i have already gone to the municipal court, and have already pleaded guilty, can i remake my plea, "to not have a plea withoug a jury present"?

Eric Dubay said...

If you've already made your plea I'd guess it's too late, but it can't hurt to try and see if they still honor your change of mind.

Anonymous said...

haha they dont honor me to start, so i dont think my change of heart will be honored either.

Anonymous said...

Bernard here. Sorry to correct you!

It is never too late. Courts of summary judgement need your consent every step of the way.

Due process requires that you be given a chance to speak out before sentencing (it's called allocution)
something like this: "Do you have anything to say as to why the

Anonymous said...

I am having problems with posting the rest of the comment I wanted to make. Let's try again.

It is never too late as the court requires your consent right up to the last minute. Even after sentencing you can undo your mistakes!!! Although it is certainly smarter to checkmate them as early as possible.

Jurisdiction can be challenged any time and that is what I would do.

If you want some ideas on how to do that contact me on

Anonymous said...

Bernard. This information was good. I my self have use this method 3 times now and it works every time.

Anonymous said...

So what would I do if the magistrate still orders for my arrest after I warn him of the serious consequences involved in trying to arrest me when I walk out from the court

Anonymous said...

some more interesting and serious information to further enlighten everyone as IAM about to do as stated above tomorrow. (we are all slaves) ... but the TRUTH can set us FREE!

Anonymous said...

The jurisdiction game they play is very true. However, this business about crossing the threshold into Admiralty Jurisdiction, is pure fiction, just like their so-called plaintiff/state. This portion of the presentation is clearly unsubtiated. In any court proceeding, be it criminal or civil, there must be an injured party and defending party. The injury must be real, palpable, concrete and distinct, not hypothetical, abstract, or conjectural. Do not, in any admit to their God-given delusion. You simply must reprove their lies of deceptive fiction. There is no injured party present in the designated place, nor can there be. States are fictional persons. They don't exist. Moreover, the actually parties of cof the particular controversy MUST appear together, NOT THEIR REPRESENTAVIES. THE CONSTITUTION IS TGE KEY. It does not give people their rights. Only God does. But, it dies secure the rights of the people, and limits the delegated powers of government officials. They have sworn to uphold The Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land (Art. VI Cls. 2,3). And they must be reminded of the fact. No Oath upon demand, no judicial authority, according to the supreme Law of the Land. Thus, you are incorrect to say, "their jurisdiction," because, in truth, there has not been established PROPER JURISDICTION. You must stay the course. And immediately move for dismissal with prejudice, for failure to state a "lawful" or Constitutionally recognized cause for asuit at law (Common Law)(Art. III Sec. 2). They are not saying it's admiralty, so neither should anyone presume such. They are not operating a lawful system, but a legal one, which people are giving, by fraud, the "force of Law." Remember, you are guaranteed a "Republican form if government." (Art. IV Sec. 4). This requires all governments to acknowledge individual rights if each one of the People...

God bless in Truth and Love. Amen.

Nick said...

Eric I am wandering if this will work for a minor being charged with possession of marijuana

Anonymous said...

Nick, I have been reading up on this, also have watched a lot of actual court cases on YouTube. I am not a lawyer, but what the lawyers are saying is that to find out if you can get out of the ticket or alleged crime, you have to ask yourself, who is the injured party? Who was hurt? If nobody was hurt, or no damage to property was done, then nobody can stand against you, or file against you. The State can not under Common Law, ticket you. Who was hurt by you possessing weed. Sorry, I just noticed that you are a minor. I am not at all sure about this. There is a separate law for minors I do believe. Which means you should be immune to being tried even, but as I stated I do not know. You are still a "Son of the Republic". American. I don't know why it would not work. Maybe they will just throw it out. I think the main problem most people have with this not working, is they back down when the judge or the clerk start with the intimidation & or raise their voice. Just my 2 cents. Good Luck & THANK YOU For Posting this information for the Freeman to see!

Anonymous said...

Hey Eric, Signing the ticket just means you received it & will appear. That is all your signature means. I know if you do not sign it they take you to jail, which is illegal in itself. The law is if they arrest you, they MUST take you to see a judge. If they take you to jail after they arrest you, you do have good standing to sue the law agency, the city, county & state. They are "holding you against your will", "false imprisonment", I'm not sure, but I think I heard it said you could throw in "Torture" also. This comes from a Retired Texas K9 Unit Hiway Patrol. He came on & was stating what your rights are in a traffic stop or a checkpoint on the hiway.

Anonymous said...

I have composed an Affidavit for the courts to be emailed prior to appearing below:

please peruse and provide feedback as to weather any changes should be made and any further input into this Affidavit.

Thank You.

B said...

Here is a link which has invaluable resources pertaining to this Post for anyone that wishes to further develop their Sovereign Walk: