What do we say

What do we say

Postby huntingross » Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:35 am

I am most likely heading this way some time soon, the police are already unhappy that I have billed them for detaining me etc.

My accumulated understanding is this:

I am Mark of the Clan Ross of the family Jennings
I am sovereign under common law and come to this Court Room today not voluntarily but under fear of reprisal to make a Special Appearance to challenge jurisdiction.
I do not accept the liability or the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement.
I waive all benefits, and I release the court from it's duty to perform, as consideration.


The first question is likely to be – Where is the contract.

BUT what other questions are required or desireable to establish jurisdiction....or is it sufficient that we have stated we are in common law ?

Also as I understand it we "Come" to court not "Appear"
"I am" not "My name is"
Special appearance good, General appearance bad.
"Court Room" not "Court" (court is where there is law)
Not voluntary – maxim at law – Certain legal consequences are attached to the voluntary act of a person.
Another maxim I like - Legality is not reality

Thoughts welcome.
Success nourishes hope
User avatar
huntingross
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: FIDACH, Near Edinburgh

Re: What do we say

Postby MikeThomas » Sat Oct 03, 2009 12:40 pm

You've pretty much covered everything in your statement. One problem though - how do you get them to listen and respond to your statement?

That's the trick HR!
We are the people our parents told us NOT TO PLAY WITH
User avatar
MikeThomas
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:17 pm
Location: Llanharan, South Wales

Re: What do we say

Postby BaldBeardyDude » Sat Oct 03, 2009 12:49 pm

Mark, it is my understanding that our family names are an aberration imposed upon us by the clergy, in times past. Think of the names - Carpenter, Thatcher, Potter, etc - they are merely the TRADES of the people, allied to their given names. So, John - who happens to stick feathers on arrows, becomes John Fletcher.

I do not intend to use my family name, merely the names I was given, as a gift, from my parents. I am, therefore Ian-Peter - nothing more, nothing less. The other name is what? The fact that one name is used, rather than another - not my mothers maiden name, for example, merely adds to the idiocy of names. My father actually cocked my BC up! Our name is Simpson, but my father is actually a Malcom-Simpson, but didn't like the idea of a hyphenated name, as it smacks of THEM, so he registered me as a plain Simpson. I would imagine this to be illegal in some way, so does that make my registration illegal? I don't know and I don't care - it was illegal from the standpoint that neither of my parents, nor I were suitably informed as to the repercussions of registration. So, void contract.

I am not now, nor have I ever been a person in their legal sense. This is by their rules. I have tried to act honorably my whole life, they have not. They have consistently and thouroughly lied to all of us, every day and in every governmental interaction. This can be proven simply by the need to consent. They know we must consent to give them any hope of applying their nonesense legal system, so they lie to us, because they KNOW we would ALWAYS refuse consent, should we become aware of this Achilles Heel the law has.

The plain fact is they are neither honourable or honest and this, I think, is my way of fighting them. Expose the deceit, expose the lies and the BS. Do it in a court setting - with a jury. Tell the jury their duty to judge me AND the law and that if they find I am guilty, but the law is unfair, then they are obliged to find for me and AGAINST the law. They are allowed to ask questions, so - get the opposition barrister on the stand, get him to answer a few questions like:

"What is a statute?" (if they mess around, give them the old "Is it not a fact that, according to ......a statute is............, consent of the governed?"

SHOW them to be the lying, cheating, oily bastards they really are - in their own court!

Subpoena people involved, who are hardly EVER called - shake them up! SHOW them, NONE of them is immune to the hassle of being dragged to answer questions on front of a jury!

Obviously, they will have ways and means to stop it, but that fact that we TRY is the most important - expose their myriad lies and deceit - it is the only way.

Should the worst happen, I wish you good luck and will be there, if at all possible, Mark - ya know it.

Thanks for the post, m8 - excellent stuff, up to the usual Huntingross standard, I'm glad to report :wink:

Oh! - nearly forgot - you say 'fear of reprisal' - is this not 'under protest and duress' then? Fear of reprisal is duress in my book, pure and simple.

Peace and love,

Baldy Pete
They must find it hard to take Truth for authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth - Gerald Massey
User avatar
BaldBeardyDude
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 2256
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:42 am
Location: Telford, Shropshire

Re: What do we say

Postby huntingross » Mon Oct 05, 2009 6:37 pm

Thanks mike / pete

I have no idea how we make them listen to this Mike, but I would have intended to get through the door first....the judge will have already received my User Agreement by this time, and may well have a Claim against him too....however the Fiscal has removed my opportunity (see my Detained post)

Agreed Pete, even though the family name is hearsay, equally so is my given name....in effect they are both given and both hearsay....and good point about duress and protest....I will add those in to include fear also....no problem using two words to say the same thing in a different way.

Just adding this into the list as it is important to get it in there....thanks to 1965 for flagging it....

1965freeman wrote:All this bollocks about getting caught out and agreeing to their jurisdiction is so easily solved. BEFORE you go into the room, you make sure that you hand a copy of a NOTICE to the usher/clerk that simply states that "No party is to assume jurisdiction or authority over me unless I express it overtly, in writing, duly witnessed"
Then precede every statement you make (until they get bored of it) with the phrase "with reference to my notice....".

then they can make any bloody assumptions they like - you've served them with notice that says quite clearly that WHATEVER you do/say/don't do/don't say means jack shit UNTIL they have your WITNESSED signature on a document .
Success nourishes hope
User avatar
huntingross
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: FIDACH, Near Edinburgh

Re: What do we say

Postby madscotbiker » Sun Jan 31, 2010 3:42 pm

Just a thought, how doe's this sound, when an invitation arrives to visit their place of business, send it back for clarification on the basis of a consultation. They are asking to consult with you in such n such a matter, so send it back saying you would be happy to act as a consultant in this matter fee is £------- any thoughts. i am mad check the tag i think so must/may be ok mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
madscotbiker
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 11:27 am


Return to Court jurisdiction only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron