The article below is an edited version of an article originally posted on September 28, 2011 on a blog which I have since deleted: runnymede1215.wordpress.com
It may be of interest to anyone who is concerned about the threat to our freedom of speech, or to someone who finds himself charged with a “hate/thought crime” by the thought police, like the ADL, or some bleeding-hearts do-gooder.
Some essential sound byte:
The article is for purposes of information only.
It is not intended to be legal advice!
Having this disclaimer out of the way I nevertheless want to point out that the legal principles ARE sound and I have personally applied them and they work!
The True Nature Of Courts
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.
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 may ask. 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. It is almost certain that you are completely unaware of it because this fact is intentionally hidden from you!
A court has absolutely no authority to initiate legal action!
Its authority is derived from sovereign men and women!
IT IS PEOPLE WHO CREATE THE COURT!
For a court to take up a matter one party must make an accusation against another. The accusation MUST be backed up a) by an AFFIDAVIT, i.e. a statement as to harm suffered, sworn under oath and signed by the plaintiff or b) by a lawful contract, signed by the parties to the contract. Without either of these the court cannot proceed – at least not lawfully!
It is important to note that ONLY living men and women can sign an affidavit. A commercial corporation, for example, or a government agency such as police, cannot sign an affidavit.
But this is not all! Even when someone has created a court by filing a writ or claim the court is not free to do as it pleases. More people power is needed: ALL parties MUST agree to accept the court’s ruling. If one of the parties refuses to authorise the court’s action then the court cannot lawfully proceed!
Bluff and Bluster
Given the plainly obvious corrupt nature of the government – any government – and its agencies, such as police and judiciary, would any sane and self-respecting man or woman grant consent to jurisdiction if they knew that it is within their power to withhold it? Of course not! Your “consent” is therefore obtained by devious means.
Because consent is vital “authoritative” processes have been put in place to mislead, intimidate and manipulate you into accepting the role of the court. One of their most beloved tools to manufacture consent is to trick you into “agreeing” with something they say in what you think is English when in reality they are speaking legalese, a language designed to confuse and mislead, a language where even the most innocuous everyday word can be made to mean something entirely different. Intimidation and manipulation, misinformation and misdirection, lies and subterfuge, denial of due process and other criminal practices – all in a day’s work for lawyers.
Such things as a summons, court order, judgement, penalty and fine convey the impression of authority, don’t they? The fact is: they are rarely worth the paper they are printed on. A summons, for instance, is made to appear to be a court order that you must obey, on penalty of arrest, when it really 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! A threat to have you arrested if you do not accept the “invitation” is actually an offence! Bluff and Bluster is the name of the game they are playing!
Court Room Architecture
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.
A typical court room
Unfortunately, too few people are aware of the significance of this architecture. The treacherous legal fraternity is hiding something 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 authority and jurisdiction of Admiralty Law, aka the Law of the Sea. Things are turned upsidedown: you are considered guilty unless you can prove your innocence and the right to trial by jury has been abolished.
You will be asked to step from the public gallery into the other part of the court room. Quite a simple and harmless request, isn’t it? Wrong! If you cross the barrier that separates the two parts of the room 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.
Needless to say: no member of the legal profession will tell you about this fraudulent switch of jurisdictions and that includes your own lawyer – if you have one! Telling you would give the crooked game away, wouldn’t it? – and anyway, your lawyer’s allegiance is to the court, you come out second best!
This imaginary ship is flying false colors, i.e. it is making itself out to be a lawful court when it is actually nothing more than a commercial outfit operating for profit/plunder. Put bluntly: you have fallen amongst pirates!
If you, from the safety of the public gallery and the protection of Common Law, clearly and unequivocally tell the magistrate/judge that you do not consent to the court’s jurisdiction – guess what – it does not have jurisdiction! The court will almost certainly attempt to manipulate you into thinking that you are misinformed. You may also be threatened with arrest or with a contempt-of-court charge. That is nothing but more of their bluff and bluster.
Contempt of court is an invention of the judiciary designed to gain control over anyone who challenges them. Should that happen ask them: “Is this criminal or civil ?” A criminal offence 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 offence needs to be based on a lawful contract. Needless to say they will not be able to produce either an affidavit or a contract to back up an offence that does not exist. 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.
How does the above information relate to, let us say, a charge of holocaust denial or causing offence to a Jew by making critical remarks about Jews and Judaism and/or Zionism and Israel? I am not a lawyer and do not give legal advice. Furthermore, there are simply too many variables involved to give a one-size-fits-all solution. What I can do, though, is to give you pointers and outline the strategy and legal principles I would use myself and, in fact, have used before. It is up to you what you do with this information. Do not take anything I say without checking and double-checking!
These principles apply in any and all legal actions in Common Law jurisdictions such as: the UK, Scotland, Ireland, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (these are the countries I am sure about).
Common Law is the only true law there is! It cannot be abrogated by anybody! Let nobody fool you into thinking that Common Law no longer exists!
Let’s assume then that I have written an article on my blog which is deemed to be anti-Semitic by the Jewish thought police such as the ADL or its equivalent here in Australia.
Or perhaps I have publicly voiced doubts concerning the holocaust and someone decides to drag me into court on charges of holocaust denial.
Let me begin by clarifying what I definitely would NOT do:
A) I would not hire a lawyer! It would be a waste of time, money and energy to hire a defence lawyer; his loyalty is first and foremost to the BAR association, i.e. his professional organization and to the court. In view of the fact that a disproportionate number of the members of the legal profession (probably most of them!) are Jews or Freemasons (and oftentimes they are both) I could not reasonably expect a fair trial because both elements operate outside natural justice, to wit: Jews have the duplicitous Kol Nidre and Freemasons have their equally duplicitous secret oaths. They cannot be trusted with something as valuable as truth and justice! Period! Furthermore, a Jew could not be considered unbiased in a case that touches on things Jewish, could he?
B) I would not invest any of my precious time, money and energy going into court to defend the case on the basis of truth. That has been done before and does not work. Modern courts are commercial outfits. They are in the business of making money for their principal, the government. They are not especially concerned with truth and justice. Just ask David Irving, Ernst Zundel, Robert Faurisson and Frederick Toben and a host of innocent victims of our perverted “jewdicial” system! The holocaust is a matter for historians and forensic scientists to deal with. Not for courts.
There are two kinds of legal actions: CRIMINAL and CIVIL. In a nutshell: criminal cases are based on a breach of the peace; that means I need to have harmed somebody. Civil cases are based on contracts and breaches thereof. To establish whether there is a criminal or civil case to answer I need to ask some questions.
First Question: Is holocaust denial a crime? Let’s see! Who is the plaintiff? The ADL? The Jewish People? Both are not living beings, cannot sign an affidavit and therefore have no standing in the matter! No! It’s Mr Goldberg who claims to be the victim of a crime! Oy gevalt! Well then, did I breach the peace by causing him genuine harm and injury? If so, what exactly is the harm done? Mind you: we are talking about real harm here. i.e. harm to life and limb and/or property. Did I perhaps defame the plaintiff, destroy his reputation, thus causing him real suffering and measurable harm? Please note: his bruised sensitive little Jewish soul does not count!
NO VICTIM = NO CRIME = NO CRIMINAL CASE
Second Question: Is there a lawful contract? Did I sign an agreement with Mr Goldberg to accept the holocaust as an established and hallowed truth? Do I have a contractual obligation never to ask awkward questions about it?
NO CONTRACT = NO BREACH OF CONTRACT = NO CIVIL CASE
I would then proceed as follows:
You can probably imagine that going to court can be an expensive, time-consuming and nerve-wrecking business. But why would I go there if I do not have to? As I have not committed a crime and as there is no contract there is neither a criminal nor a civil case to answer. A summons is an invitation. I will politely but firmly decline it.
I do NOT have to physically appear in any court. Everything can be done in writing, either to the plaintiff, his legal counsel and/or the court. In fact: it is the paperwork, the affidavit process, that actually constitutes the court!
If, however, I decide to go into the court building, for whatever reason, here is, in a nutshell, what I would or would not do:
I never walk into a court room without witnesses, i.e. the general public + the friends I bring along.
Given half a chance the crew of the pirate ship will tamper with official records; therefore I always make sure to independently record the proceedings or get my witnesses to record them
I do not enter a plea (not even “not guilty”; by pleading I would accept the court’s jurisdiction)
I do not carry out any order or instruction (that will give them jurisdiction!)
I do not take anything they say at face value (they speak legalese ; I compel them to use my language)
I do not enter their jurisdiction by stepping from the public gallery onto their pirate ship but remain in the public gallery, i.e. under the protection of Common Law
I do not argue with them nor discuss anything (remember: they have no case and therefore there is nothing to discuss!).
I clearly and unequivocally deny them consent to jurisdiction
After denying consent I will warn the court not to touch me nor to interfere with my leaving. I then walk out of the court room and no longer respond to anything more coming from the court
You may ask: “It can’t be that simple, can it?” Lawyers would have you believe that the law is a complex maze or, perhaps, a dangerous minefield that only they can successfully navigate. They would say that, wouldn’t they? The longer the journey through their fantasy world, the more they like it – because you pay for it! You are their meal ticket! You pay for their bread and butter – and Mercedes, beach villas and mistresses.
And yes, it is that simple! All I am doing is to assert my rights! Isn’t it time you did the same for your rights?
Not convinced? Here is the link to a description of my wife’s court case, complete with audio clipping wherein consent to jurisdiction is denied. This was not a “hate crime” but, as I explained above, the principles apply in any and all legal actions.
The aftermath of this case: My wife and I have placed Commercial Liens on the cops involved, the magistrate and some of their higher-ups in the public service and government. These Liens, although I have not yet been able to collect, are still valid and will remain valid for a very long time!
Here is the link to an audio clip in which I am arrested, well, sort of. I have deleted the blog that the clip was originally linked to. But just listening will tell you most of what happens here: the cop arrests me, I deny him authority and jurisdiction, refuse to comply with instructions, close the window to prevent him opening the car from within and nearly pin him down!!! After some to-ing and fro-ing and lengthy consultation with his headquarters he “allows” me to continue (isn’t that generous?) with the explanation that I am an old man and he doesn’t want to hurt me. Actually, I was an old man when he stopped me and threatened to break into the car and drag me out!
For more info on Common Law visit the sites below:
www.rightsandwrong.com.au (Australian site)
www.larryhannigan.com (Australian site)