Judge "ordered" appearence in court...what to do?

[onus777]

If a "wtiness" cannot be compelled to testify (especially under threat of force, which has been the case) and since it is a voluntary act to do so, how does a man of the land free himself from such imposition upon him? Should a man establish his claim of right and serve notice to the court? should the man go to court and establish claim of right in court on record? what are the options? My partner is the alleged "defendant" I, the alleged "victim/witness" in a domestic.
I really appreciate some help... this is a time sensitive situation (as it is the same for all)...
Just looking for different views, possibly some suggestions...
Really could use some help here.

thank you for all response :)

[Andrew]

have a read of this: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=331&p=3496#p3496

[MikeThomas]

Not sure what you're on about here. I think more details are needed, but if it's any help: 'A wife cannot be forced to give evidence against her husband'. As this falls under common law there has to be a claiment (your partner?)or 'injured party'.

[huntingross]

I'm not getting what you're after here.

If the judge issued an order, issue the judge a bill.

Is the alleged 'thing' a statute or common law issue

[onus777]

Just to clariry:
-My partner and I are not married. It is an alleged domestic dispute, the police charged the "person" with assault.
Although long story. Anyhow, we both went to the hearing end of april as living man/woman, handed notices of corporate denial
to Manger of the Courts, and went through proceeding (not much prepared, however at all times we both did claim our rights and it is on record), we both
refused and denied joinder, judge continued with proceedings...then the judge held recess and said the "person" (looking at the living woman) must return and not leave the building...
We both did not return. 2 weeks later appearent warrents were out for the "persons", under duress and threat of force, arrested both living man/woman.
He still in prison, as we've been unable to find surety. I was ordered to return at end of month to set date for trial, however that is not my wish, and
would like to know how this could be handled ? A living being cannot be compelled (especially under threat which the judge has been doing), this is what I am comprehending.

Furthermore, I am with knowledge that to "witness" one must comply with the offer/order (this makes my compliance a voluntary act?)
Is this not accurate? in section 39 of the criminal code of canada it states that a claim of right establishes lawful excuse
not to make an appearence before court. If man/woman have lawful excuse, they have the right to not perform on the order...
this also clearly stated in criminal code section 126,127.

In any event, the man/woman is not under thier juristiction, and I suppose that they are trying real hard to get
jurisdistion via my consent which it does not have.

So the "person" is expected to show up at the end of this month,
however Im wondering since the above is proven in fact,
is it even necessary to be present?
What options are there?

[huntingross]

OK....I have to admit to being extremely dim here, you appear yo be flitting between 'man' 'woman' 'person' in a 'domestic'....

Unless I'm missing a finer point here.....the phrase 'domestic' implies someone hit someone....

This is 'HARM'.....which is 'COMMON LAW'

So tell me I'm missing the point, because I'd like to think there is no case to answer here

[Veronica]

All 'acts' are 'voluntary'. They just may, or may not, be 'under duress'. You are not (I presume) on strings ... like a marionette.

If someone (anyone) gives you an order, then they can be charged whatever amount you declare as the cost of executing (servicing) that order.

When an order is issued, you need to respond "There will be a charge of £5,000,000 for carrying out that order ... are you prepared to pay?"

If witnessed, and affirmed (even apparently jokingly), then that's a Contract. And you can claim on it. And you should - at the time - say "I will claim on that because it is my wish". There is a likelihood that whoever will back down ... provided what you said was comprehended. A Judge should comprehend. (Or certainly any Clerk of the Court).

However, the big problem here is that your explanation is missing so many bits that it is almost impossible to really understand what, exactly, has happened ... and what the situation actually is.

Is there an order still outstanding? If so, you can write and say you will service the order at a cost of £5,000,000 if they are prepared to pay. And that you will collect on that ("... because it is your wish"). And, since their reply would have to be in writing, if your letter was in writing, then you would have the evidence of the Contract.

But it is totally unclear whether you are trying to get someone out of jail, keep yourself out of jail, whether you are the victim, or whatever, why both of you could end up in jail, etc. etc. etc.

It is, therefore very difficult to help.

Perhaps it would be a good thing to explain it in sequence, for example:

1. "He" is my partner. We are not married.
2. He hit me (raped me, etc)
3. I reported it (someone else reported it ... etc)
4 ...
5...
6...
... and so on.

[onus777]

The situation:

The man in question is my life partner, however not living together.
I called the police, 1 year ago, not out of fear for my life, moreso out of being upset (not comprehending the full ramifications of involving the third party). The local police along with crown are trying to press the issue ahead. I have made it very that that is not my wish to proceed nor contract with them. I have been threatened and orderd by judge that I am to show for court at end of month otherwise a warrent would be issued".
Both my partner and I showed up for court at end of last month and we went in with full reservation of rights and denying corporate existance.
We even served notice of denial of corporate existance (given to manager of the courts, that she aknowledged recieving such documentation, however not often). We proceeded to trial and entered as living man/woman and claimed or rights on the record, this was dismissed and ignored, and they continued with the proceedings regardless.
Would this or could this be construed as inticement into slavery?
Furthermore, they are obviously trying to compel the woman to perform on an order/contract she does not consent to!
I would like to know what are the options here?
I cannot be forced into setting a trial date. It is not my wish to do so.

[samsmith]

Hello Onus777,

If you don’t mind me saying, I get the impression that you knowledge on the freeman root is not at present good enough to go through the system, and more importantly, win by doing so.

Your postings in this thread is not giving enough coherent information for anyone to offer a useful personal opinion on how they would behave in your position. (Neither they, nor I, are giving legal or lawful advice, only saying what we might do in your position.)

Assuming that the case is a criminal one and based in common law, which may cross over into statute law as well, and I assume subject to punishment that can include a prison term, including beyond the sentancing power of a magistrate, with the sentencing option open to both presiding magistrate or judge.

I would ask for the case to be tried before a jury and in the Crown court environment as that will be the nearest you will get to being tried in the common law jurisdiction as the verdict will be given by 12 of your piers, unlike in a magistrates court where the magistrates tend to side with the advice of the prosecution and the clerk of the court. (they are not commonly called “Police Courts” for nothing).

The defendant should be entitled to free legal service and advice, and part of that advice may cover the options available to defence witnesses and how they could behave in the witness box.

A key point in jury trials is that the prosecution have to prove guilt “Beyond Reasonable Doubt”.

What is “Reasonable Doubt” ?

Imaginary Case

In this imaginary case, there is police statements made by officers based on the victims claims and physical evidence being offered in court to physical harm being done to the using photos and medical statements gained due to treatment being undertaken on the alleged victim.

The alleged victim decides that they do not want to have the defendant prosecuted as they feel it is not in the public interest, or theirs, or the defendants. The DPP do not want to listen to what the victim has to say and have no intention of acting on it (I think they do have targets to meet after all, and a nice fat salary to earn as easily as possible) The alleged victim decides to undertake the following actions, as this is how they remember it in the clear light of day, and having time to reflect on the detail of the events and surrounding events. The victim remembers having an accident, sports injury, play fight or the real reason for getting injured in the first place, i.e. falling over just prior to the alleged assault. So were the injuries “actually” caused by the defendant or some action that that has not so far been taken into account. If that was the case “Reasonable Doubt” exists on that point irrespective of the surrounding reported events.

Then there is the matter of the witness saying “I don’t remember well enough to be certain” or “I’m not sure if that’s the way it actually happened now” Or any other statements made under oath of a similar vain. These type of statements do provide “Reasonable Doubt” for the defence to pursue and show to the jury.

One hostile witness to the DPP can have a case seriously challenged especially if that witness is the one that the case relies on, the defence will exploit it to the fullest extent of the legal system.

None of this may apply to your particular case, but I would suggest until you know how to use the freeman system effectively you do not dismiss the other systems that are available to you, and if you do not have a “Legal” representative you should get one as soon as possible. Once the Lisbon Treaty takes full effect across the EU people will no longer have the jury system to protect you, and “police courts" will become the only ones that cases will be tried in, and that means the sole defence available will be one of mitigation as defendants will be deemed to be guilty as the starting point.

I would suggest you make use of the jury system as you may be one of the last people to be able to do so and have a great story to tell your grandchildern about the time when people could be found not guilty of a crime prior to the EU soviet state taking control of every aspect of peoples lives

sam

[Freeman-B]

HI Onus777

Let me see if I understand this situation

1. You are in Canada
2. The Police responded to an allegation and detained your partner, charging him with assault
3. Your partner is still in custody
4. You have both attended the initial hearing (was any plea made, did you create "joinder" with the Strawman in either case?)
5. You have made it clear that you do not wish the case to proceed (you are the main witness for the prosecution)
6. the Police/Prosecutor have decided to continue and are calling you as a witness against your partner and against your will
7. The summons is for sometime near the end of the month

More or less correct so far?

First, the really good news - Canada is WAY ahead of the UK/elsewhere in Freeman matters and you have a couple of real experts in CA that can help - look up Rob: Menard and Mary-Elizabeth: Croft - both have experience in Canadian "courts" and Rob has been known to help others in similar situations (hope I'm not misrepresenting him here)

As was stated earlier, assault is a common law offence - that means the police have to have either witnessed it or have a written complaint - did you sign anything to say it happened and what the consequences were? If not, if they are only reporting what you "said" at the time, that is hearsay.

You have done well to retain your rights and deny their corporate ability to rule over you, but, as others say, there is much more that you could do and probably too much to learn in a week.

If it were me, I might start with denying joinder to the strawman - i.e. when MR JOHN DOE is called, your partner might wish to say that he is "here to discuss that matter" (without saying he IS MR JOHN DOE) as the authorised legal representative of the party concerned. If he does not admit to BEING MR JOHN DOE, they cannot hold him as surety. Similarly, both your summons and his are for the strawman - you could write to the court in advance explaining that this is not YOU, the Woman - see thinkfree.ca and worldfreemansociety.org for examples of how others have done this.

The plea is important. The only plea that you can honourably make is guilty - however you can enter no plea at the present time, in which case the Judge will often try to enter a plea for you - he CANNOT practice law from the bench and should be reminded of this fact! Alternatively, if you have time to astablish the FACTS in an affidavit (an unrebutted affidavit stands a FACT in a court of law) you could submit an affidavit to the court explaining what you need them to take notice of and then plead guilty to the facts.

As the matter is a common law one, Magna Carta 1215 says you are entitled to a jury - otherwise it is a statute De Facto Court with no standing in Common Law matters. Magna Carta 1215 still applies in Canada.

If all else fails, and they ram something down the throat of your partner, he can always do what Mary-Elizabeth: Croft did - when asked if she had anything to say before sentencing, she said "Yes, I do not accept the sentence". They tried to sentence her to 12 months, then 6 months and she just kept repeating "I do not accept the sentence"! They could only try that 3 times, then they had to dismiss the case - check out here e-book - it's free and only takes a few hours to read.

Sorry that this is all a bit garbled, but I am aware that time is against you and am thinking out loud - I'm sure others at WFS/thinkfree can help you better than I, as this is, obviously only my opinion and I'm not even Canadian!, let alone a lawyer (Ugghhhh!)

Remember, a summons is only an invitation to attend, and you cannot be forced to contract with ANYONE against your will.

On a slightly lighter note, a couple of other things people have said in court

Clerk of the court: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Defendant: No. If I knew the whole truth, my name would be in that book, and not my hand upon it!

(paraphrasing from Rob: Menard again I believe)

Clerk of the Court: Is this your date of birth?

Defendant: I don't know, I wasn't counting at the time!

Clerk of the Court/Judge: Please stand

Defendant: I will stand, your honour, on condition that the court take judicial notice that, in doing so, I enter into no contract with You, the Court or any other party without my express written consent and that I waive none of, and retain all of my rights, including, but not limited to those guaranteed by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.

The last example says it all - keep your rights, refuse joinder and always accept their offer........on YOUR conditions, such as (as Veronica says) payment of your bill - in ADVANCE!

Good luck and I hope you find the help you seek
B