Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: Response from the Secretary

  1. #21
    You have NO STANDING before the court, not being a member of the BAR, and thus cannot speak for the legal fiction (ACTOR) whose name sounds exactly like yours (idem sonans). For you to attempt a court appearance perpetrates fraud upon the court and NOTHING you say or file with the court may be recognized or heard, in spite of your best intentions and most diligent efforts.

    The judge will take silent notice immediately.

    Hiring an attorney only complicates issues because it makes you a ward of the court (incompetent-to-handle your own affairs) AND it compromises your interests (attorneys are officers of the court whose first allegiance is to the court and not to their clients). Representing yourself pro se is no solution, either, unless you conveniently happen to be a member of the BAR (perish the thought!).

  2. #22
    So what do you suggest one does when they are dragged into court?

    Quote Originally Posted by LearnTheLaw View Post
    You have NO STANDING before the court, not being a member of the BAR, and thus cannot speak for the legal fiction (ACTOR) whose name sounds exactly like yours (idem sonans). For you to attempt a court appearance perpetrates fraud upon the court and NOTHING you say or file with the court may be recognized or heard, in spite of your best intentions and most diligent efforts.

    The judge will take silent notice immediately.

    Hiring an attorney only complicates issues because it makes you a ward of the court (incompetent-to-handle your own affairs) AND it compromises your interests (attorneys are officers of the court whose first allegiance is to the court and not to their clients). Representing yourself pro se is no solution, either, unless you conveniently happen to be a member of the BAR (perish the thought!).

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyn View Post
    So what do you suggest one does when they are dragged into court?

    When you enter THEIR court, you submit yourself to THEIR jurisdiction

    14th Amendment:
    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
    thereof,
    are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside..."


    RULE: Never accept a presentment without contesting it, but remember that the ONLY thing you want to contest is the "style of the case," i.e. the corruption of your Christian appellation into a corporate fiction form. To argue anything else in the pleading (even a contention that you are an ax murderer) instantly causes you to traverse into the opposition's jurisdiction-and you're dead!


    The burden is upon them to prove that they have jurisdiction over you.

    Did you 'knowingly and willingly' volunteer to become a US citizen?

    Did you fully comprehend the fact that you were 'voluntarily' waving your constitutional rights to become a 14th amendment debt slave?



    Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970)
    Waivers of Constitutional Rights not only must be voluntary, but must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.


    ================================================== ================================================== ============

    17. Under the Federal and State Constitutions, "... We the People" did not surrender our individual sovereignty to either the State or Federal Government. Powers "delegated" do not equate to powers surrendered. This is a Republic, not a democracy, and the majority cannot impose its will upon the minority simply because some "law" is already set forth. Any individual can do anything he or she wishes to do, so long as it does not damage, injure or impair the same Right of another individual. The concept of a corpus delicti is relevant here, in order to prove some "crime" or civil damage.

    18. The case law surrounding the 13th and 14th Amendments all rings with the same message: "These amendments did not change the status of Common Law Citizenship of the white Citizens of one of the several States of the Union" (now 50 in number).

    19. This goes to the crux of the controversy because, under the so-called 14th Amendment, citizenship is a privilege and not a "Right". (See American and Ocean Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511 (1828); Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924).)

    20. It was never the intent of the so-called 14th Amendment to change the status of the Common Law Citizens of the several States. (See People v. Washington, 36 C. 658, 661 (1869); French v. Barber, 181 U.S. 324 (1900); MacKenzie v. Hare, 60 L.Ed. 297). Intent is always decisive and conclusive on the courts.

    21. However, over the years, the so-called 14th Amendment has been used to create a fiction and to destroy American freedom through administrative regulation. How is this possible? The answer is self-evident to anyone who understands the law, namely, a "privilege" can be regulated to any degree, including the alteration and even the revocation of that privilege.

    22. Since the statutory status of "citizen of the United States, subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (1866 Civil Rights Act) is one of privilege and not of Right, and since the so called 14th Amendment mandates that both Congress and the several States take measures to protect these new "subjects", then both the Federal and State governments are mandated to protect the privileges and immunities of ONLY these "citizens of the United States".
    (See Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906).)

    23. Of course, the amount of protection afforded has a price to pay, but the important fact is that the "privilege" of citizenship under the so-called 14th Amendment can be regulated or revoked because it is a "privilege" and not a RIGHT. It is here that the basic, fundamental concept of "self-government" turns into a King "governing his subjects".


    http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chapter9.htm

  4. #24
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    Since most of us here know, I hope, that the NAME called upon and charged against in court is not we the living, why not just ask the simple question...

    Who has best evidence of title to that NAME?

    Hint: The answer is signed and sealed on the trust receipt/indemnity certificate created shortly after we were born into this world.

    Whoever claims title (the NAME) bears the burden.

  5. #25

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    Since most of us here know, I hope, that the NAME called upon and charged against in court is not we the living, why not just ask the simple question...

    Who has best evidence of title to that NAME?

    Hint: The answer is signed and sealed on the trust receipt/indemnity certificate created shortly after we were born into this world.

    Whoever claims title (the NAME) bears the burden.

    I believe it would better, and more accurate, to say:

    Who has best evidence of LEGAL title to that NAME?

    The LEGAL title holder is liable, NOT the EQUITABLE title holder.

    IMHO,
    Douglas Raymond

  7. #27
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by doug555 View Post
    I believe it would better, and more accurate, to say:

    Who has best evidence of LEGAL title to that NAME?

    The LEGAL title holder is liable, NOT the EQUITABLE title holder.

    IMHO,
    Douglas Raymond
    Do you have EQUITABLE title to [the] Douglas Raymond SURNAME?

    If not, who does?

    If so, where's the evidence?

    I ask these questions not as an antagonist but merely to see the answers in order to study and learn.

  8. #28
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,596
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    Do you have EQUITABLE title to [the] Douglas Raymond SURNAME?

    If not, who does?

    If so, where's the evidence?

    I ask these questions not as an antagonist but merely to see the answers in order to study and learn.
    Everyone wants to sit at the right hand of the Father. Yehovah Sabbaoth is the King of Glory and the government of the Kingdom of Heaven is structured.

    quote" for Ourselves and our Posterity" - Beneficiaries

    Trustees are unnamed but the Offices are settled.

    Settlor = We the People

    I cannot trace my ancestry to the 55 - so I am not a PRIMARY beneficiary. However, I can benefit - in third party.

    Equitable Title you say? I am not with Equitable or Legal title. I did not settle or grant the trust and I am not an heir. Notice the trustees are unnamed and so are the heirs - why is this the case - because if you name a party, then the trust is for Life - unnamed parties but named offices continue even after those who created the Will are long dead.

    shalom,
    mj
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    Lawful Money Trust Website

    Divine Mind Community Call - Sundays 8pm EST

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  9. #29
    A police officer on the beat finds your automobile parked in front of a fire hydrant.

    The police officer immediately tickets and tows and your automobile is now impounded. http://www.cityofboston.gov/transportation/abandoned/ .

    Your looking for your automobile finds out it’s in the automobile pound http://www.cityofboston.gov/towing/ and “you” go to pick it up and pay the fine Boston http://www.cityofboston.gov/Parking/payment.asp

    The person in charge asks for identification. What are you going to give the person for identification?

    The LEGAL title holder identification or the EQUITABLE title identification card?

    Because without I.D. you are getting nothing.

    You say "I am not with Equitable or Legal title."

    The person in charge who is asking for identification says “come back when you find the owner.”

    Show me the best evidence of LEGAL title to that NAME (other than a drivers licenses) for the automobile.

    Tell me what are you going to give the person for identification to get your automobile back?

    By the way: http://www.boston.com/news/local/bre...n_parking.html .

  10. #30
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    I also would say that I am not with equitable title to the Anthony Joseph SURNAME. ALL titles have been seized since 1933 and individual "ownership", according to Senate Document No.43 of the 73rd Congress 1st Session, is "by virtue of Government" and "amounting to mere user" (see attached page 13).

    If that doesn't spell it out...

    I believe there is a choice for "mere user" as well; we either use in trustee de son tort (adverse claims) or in naked use (render unto Caesar) with an acknowledged assignment of all reversionary interest in the NAME to and for the account of the United States - 12USC95a(2).
    Attached Images Attached Images

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •