this is a news item (test)
Started by FOTLCKA Michael, September 10, 2011, 06:47:18 PM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: GiGie on September 14, 2011, 08:05:47 AMI posted that form up on the now defunct British section of Thinkfreeforums.org last time you were saying Winston Shrout was wrong and that it is a life Annuity the reason I didnt lodge it was it was declaring me a PERSON. I suppose a I could change the word PERSON to WOMAN but since the term WOMAN more than likely has legal implications. I left the remedy behind. It has been almost 3 years since I have needed to call this remedy back into question now and I have been challenging their Authority on that basis in the courts. There is definitely a bond in the room and as far as I am concerned the judge is unlawfully administering it.[...] I think Frank O's stuff on this seems on the mark.[...] I understand that the Driving scam is a mega lucrative deal for them but rules are rules and the law of Equity applies before all rules.
QuoteThe form does not declare that you are a legal person Mary, it declares that you, whatever you call yourself, are alive and claiming the beneficial interest of a trust in your STRAWMAN's name, following the assumption that you, the sole beneficiary of the trust, were dead, when said interest was not claimed within seven years of the annuity's creation.
QuoteWith respect, there is no evidence that the judge is administering a bond in our name when we appear in court; it is, as Winston himself said when he presented it in his seminars, just a theory. However, after hundreds of hours spent buring the midnight oil searching for it, I have seen no evidence that there is a birth bond in existence.
QuoteAs you already know, I have studied Winston, Creditors in Commerce, Tony King, Tim Turner, Jack Smith et al and was on the brink of attempting to take control of any bond in my name, which I intended to do by serving a package of extremely powerful documents and instruments on the US Treasury, as has been done by several researchers I am in contact with. Not one of them received any form of response, but we know of others who have been prosecuted by the IRS for attempting to de-fraud the US Treasury. This is certainly not an area in which we can afford to learn from our mistakes, so I inevitably scrapped my intention on the basis that there was no evidence that anybody had had any success in so doing and because the last thing I wanted to do was do business with the military-industrial complex. It was then that I discovered the paper trail for the annuities, which led me to the realisation that those instruments are far more valuable than bonds, since they generate ever-increasing profits for the owner [grantor].
QuoteIn simple terms, Frank's foundational argument, that nobody has ever successfully challenged the authority of the papal bulls, therefore the Pope controls the planet and everything on it, just doesn't stand up to scrutiny, on the basis that the English Constitution, from Magna Carta to the Act of Settlement, was and remains a successful legal challenge to the authority of Popery on the shores of what is known as the Commonwealth. Therefore, Frank''s undertsanding of the court system is inevitably misconceived in my humble opinion, which has thus far not been successfully challenged, although it goes without saying that I would never rule out the possibility.:.
QuoteI also agree that the rules of Equity should be applied to all equitable matters, but I have experienced for myself in the High Court of Chancery, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, that the courts will not apply those rules against an interest of the Crown and the banksters, who control just about everything within the judicial system and beyond. The Supreme Court, as dictated by the Registrar of the Queen's Privvy Council, will not even consider challenging a verdict in the name of truth and justice, if that might involve even the slightest bit of embarrassment for one of her majesty's favourite law lords or knights of the ill-gotten realm.:.
QuoteIf things are that bad in the highest court in the land, it is reasonable to conclude that justice is simply not obtainable in any court room in which all the players of a rigged game are working for the Crown, except you. It is an unconscionable conflict of interests, pure and simple, which is prima facie evidence that could form the basis of a legal argument that would declare the entire system null and void.].
Quote from: GiGie on September 13, 2011, 10:38:55 PMthanks for your vic beck contribution Jonah. Do you have any ideas how you would get around the Annex 53 (dont quote me) of PACE which now allows them to detain or reconvene for a mental health assessment when you refuse to joinder to your DOB/Name?
Quote from: Jonah on September 16, 2011, 03:15:28 PMWas in court today for fines for driving offences.No name game involved. Gave them my registered names.Told the court, "I am here to have settled all debts that I owe".They said "OK" and told me that I owe £1150.I said, "before we go any further please confirm to me who is the creditor?"The players then confined between themselves before saying"there is no creditors, you are here for fines"I said: "But you just confirmed to me I am the debtor when I said I am here to settle all debts that I owe. Therefore there must be a creditor. So is there a debtor and creditor, yes or no?"The court then called a recess for 15 mins.On return the magistrates said that the fines has been quashed.
Quote"OF THE ABSOLUTE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS." These rights of life and member, can only be determined by the death of the person; which was formerly accounted to be either a civil or natural death. The civil death commenced, if any man was banished or abjured the realm(z) by the process of the common law, or entered into religion; that is, went into a monastery, and became there a monk professed: in which cases he was absolutely dead in law, and his next heir should have his estate. For such banished man was entirely cut off from society; and such a monk, upon his profession, renounced solemnly all secular concerns: and besides, as the popish clergy claimed an exemption from the duties of civil life and the commands of the temporal magistrate, the genius of the English laws would not suffer those persons to enjoy the benefits of society, who secluded themselves from it, and refused to submit to its regulations.(a) A monk was therefore counted civiliter mortuus, and when he entered into religion might, like other dying men, make his testament and executors; or if he made none, the ordinary might grant administration to his next of kin, as if he were actually dead intestate. And such executors and administrators had the same power, and might bring the same actions for debts due to the religious, and were liable to the same actions for those due from him, as if he were naturally deceased.(b) Nay, so far has this principle been carried, that when one was bound in a bond to an abbot and his successors, and afterwards made his executors, and professed himself a monk of the same abbey, and in process of time was himself made abbot thereof; here the law gave him, in the capacity of abbot, an action of debt against his own executors to recover the money due.(c) In short, a monk or religious was so effectually dead in law, that a lease made even to a third person, during the life (generally) of one who afterwards became a monk, determined by such his entry into religion; for which reason leases, and other conveyances for life, were usually made to have and to hold for the term of one's natural life.(d) But, *[*133even in the times of popery, the law of England took no cognizance of profession in any foreign country, because the fact could not be tried in our courts;(e) and therefore, since the Reformation, this disability is held to be abolished:(f) as is also the disability of banishment, consequent upon abjuration, by statute 21 Jac. I. c. 28.13This natural life, being, as was before observed, the immediate donation of the great Creator, cannot legally be disposed of or destroyed by any individual, neither by the person himself, nor by any other of his fellow-creatures, merely upon their own authority.