TV Licence Man and Policeman are educated to what the LAW is [Archive]

View Full Version : TV Licence Man and Policeman are educated to what the LAW is

Bongo

11th February 2013, 19:52

Here is a video of 2 men standing up to a warrant claiming they can enter the premises to search for a TV. The warrant has no authority and the man from the BBC tries his best to convince them with a police officer present that it is lawful.

Shameful display by the police even turning up at the premises to give the deception of authority and infringing on peoples rights.

Its a good thing the guys in the video know their rights.

m1mjTjL6k1Q

Carmody

11th February 2013, 20:36

The part that baffles me, is that anyone would want a TV. It's like wanting and coveting child molestation.

:)

PS, the guy who tries to convince that it is lawful is up for a misrepresentation and falsification lawsuit. Big time. They even have it on tape.

Bongo

11th February 2013, 21:36

The thing about this that bugs me is... how many other warrants get handed to police officers for other make believe crimes unrelated to a TV warrant for them to issue to people unlawfully to intimidate them into getting their way so they can violate peoples rights.

This video shows that even if a police officer is present, challenge the warrant being given out. Even the police officer admitted after being challenged that he didn't have the authority to break the door down, which translates to, if he had used force to enter the premises then he would have broken the law.

A little bit of education goes a long way.

airaspect

12th February 2013, 01:19

kaon

12th February 2013, 02:07

Now that really gave me a good laugh :rofl: Kudos to those guys for standing their ground. That same scenario may not have played out so well in the U.S. as the police don't normally exhibit such patience.

TV's have to be licensed in the U.K. ? At first I thought it may have something to do with cable theft, but I guess not.

Bongo

12th February 2013, 04:10

I fail to understand why do You applaud these two guys. Policeman handed them a warrant singed up by a judge. It's not like they got pushed around by a brutal police officers - it was just a TV inspection. Of course i don't know British law but it's very plausible that they were obliged to let the policeman in.

Just because the policeman wasn't sure about the law or just decided not to take further actions doesn't mean he was wrong. Could someone elaborate.

We live in a common law society, these guys were trying to enforce a statute law as if it was a common law. In order for you to be charged with a statute law you have to accept responsibility for the apparent crime committed i.e. not paying a TV licence, speeding tickets & the rest.
Common law is basically, don't hurt anyone & don't steal from anyone, if someone hurts or steals from someone they have broken the law and you can be arrested on the spot by the police no questions asked.
Statute law is parliamentary acts that the politicians come up with regularly that cover everything else, if a police officer sees you breaking one of these he will tell you that you have broken the law without arresting you (because he doesn't have the authority) so that gives you time to take responsibility and once you have took responsibility you can then be arrested. they need you to take responsibility, they need your consent, they will be crafty trying to get it but know your rights and stand up for them.

Research The Strawman Illusion and look in to the legal/lawful side of it and you will start to see how the system works. The law is actually set up like this in a lot of countries, so it would be worth while looking in to Common & Statute law from your country.

Now that really gave me a good laugh :rofl: Kudos to those guys for standing their ground. That same scenario may not have played out so well in the U.S. as the police don't normally exhibit such patience.

TV's have to be licensed in the U.K. ? At first I thought it may have something to do with cable theft, but I guess not.

Unfortunately TV's need to be licensed in the UK because of the BBC. The BBC asks people to pay a TV licence fee because they don't have adverts, they only have about 10 channels (I think, I've not watched TV in years lol) and there are about roughly 80 to 100 channels. they don't send it out on an encrypted channel either they just expect you to pay for it because they say so and if you don't you get treated like in the video.

I think they should send out their channels encrypted so that when people know they have the choice no one will buy them and they will go bust... lol... but I get the idea that that is exactly the reason they don't.

sigma6

12th February 2013, 06:30

I fail to understand why do You applaud these two guys. Policeman handed them a warrant singed up by a judge. It's not like they got pushed around by a brutal police officers - it was just a TV inspection. Of course i don't know British law but it's very plausible that they were obliged to let the policeman in.

Just because the policeman wasn't sure about the law or just decided not to take further actions doesn't mean he was wrong. Could someone elaborate.

WRONG... you can't exercise authority from a position of ignorance by definition. And even if that was valid the police and the corporate shill left, of their own free will, that's tacit agreement at the very least...(good job) it just freaks me out when people try to convince themselves that they have to open the door to the police and let them in... I see this all the time now, people have so much misinformation from the sophisticated media, they are actually programming themselves.

Try this on, "I don't understand what you are on about, I don't recognize you or anything that you are talking about, therefore I cannot consent to anything..." they clearly stated it was a private corporation, operating under a statutory act.

But actually I am amazed at how 'civil' the police are over there... guess they understand the liability issues better. He was touching on the NAME issue, and that is correct the NAME is NOT to be used for identification, and IT IS CLEARLY STATED on British IDS (remarkably!) BTW Can anyone from the UK give me a direct quote of what it says exactly? (please and thank you)

And he is right that the government is holding the title to the NAME which means anything registered in that NAME the government is liable for, they are liable simply because of the fact that they are holding it. The part a lot are still missing is that the NAME is actually yours... but the Government is holding it. It's the fact that it is yours and the government is holding it that makes them liable. If I was holding your keys, I don't become the owner, and if I should do anything damaging I would be liable. Stating that the NAME is yours and you're also aware that the government is holding what is yours (notice how I avoid the word "own"?) and that they are by definition liable is a big issue...

And please put up that quote Loony, would love for everybody to see it... to spread some awareness. I think a lot of people are having a hard time conceptualizing that the Birth Certificate is NOT EVIDENCE of IDENTIFICATION and never referred to as such in any government documentation, people do it themselves (and thus bind themselves) I better stop here... (lol)

bogeyman

12th February 2013, 07:29

When I didn't have a tv they visited me 9 times, I told them in writing, on the phone in person, yet they still kept coming round. I was harassed so much I got a tv!

Paranormal

12th February 2013, 08:56

The police aren't here to help. They don't have to help anyone with any crime. I personally am so fed up with Police I won't even speak to them - I'll hang-up the phone and won't answer my door.

kesom

12th February 2013, 13:56

as far as i know in the UK the police oath is to protect from theft,injury and damage to you and or your property basically

if you use/give your name you are representing yourself as a company and you are entering into maritime law............thats why the judge gets you to approach the bench when you finally get to court,when you pass into the doc you are basically stepping onto a ship and can be tried under maritime law !

and an act/statute of law can only be imposed if the person acknowledges the act/statute

this is my basic understanding of british law :(

the law is a tool which is used on the public very frequently in all countries to keep them in line,this we all know but wouldnt it be great if we had a lot better understanding of the law and could use it to our advantage

its such a murky subject when you look into freeman/common/maritime law that you can never be sure if your case is gonna stand up in court when you get there,from what ive seen if they get your signature on anything they'll use it as ID and your screwed

i think once you have even a driving license you are representing yourself as a company and can be tried under maritime law because you would have signed the application in your name and represented yourself as a company/ slave basically !

is there anybody out there that can comment that has genuine knowledge of the law that could clear up and or advise on the law

i know in the US ye have blacks law dictionary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black%27s_Law_Dictionary) for lawyers to study
but for the uk im not so sure how applicable it is

good vid but i'd rather see how the fight ends up rather than the second or third round of a 12 rounder ;)
thanks for sharing :)

peace K :)

Mad Hatter

12th February 2013, 15:17

im not so sure how applicable it is

Admiralty/maritime + law merchant law = UCC (uniform commercial code) = basically the international law of commerce and therefore applies across all UN signatories and do note that international treaties almost always over ride any local laws.

The whole thing is based on CONtracts especially the three cornered types otherwise referred to as Trusts so you will find your remedy by studying these. Note this may take a decade or two as this is the deepest rabbit hole available to fall into...

Next step of course is finding a court that is not the equivalent of a star chamber where dems dat has da gunz makes da rulez on behalf of dem dat holdz da gold so good luck with that.

Advanced students may want to look into liens and bonds if not having done so already.

If you wish to see a really elegant example of how to use the system against the system check out the OPPT UCC filings. Basically they have legal paper, of standing (i.e. unrebutted), which has foreclosed on ALL corporations world wide (includes most governments).

Sweet stuff but once again the problem they have is enforcement against those with the gunz n gold...

hmm... taking a cue from sigma6..."I better stop here"....

PS On this thread is a really good vid on how and why we are all so easily swindled by dint of the fact that we simply fail to questions...

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?51516-What-The-FUQ-Frequently-Unanswered-Questions-of-the-Australian-Government

Akasha

13th February 2013, 23:40

I showed the OP video to a retired parliamentary solicitor to try and gain some perspective. He said that they probably decided to take a non-confrontational approach at that stage since evidence of obstruction had occurred and would likely be back to pursue that resulting in the offender being "hauled up in front of the judge and being fined for obstruction".....and then get back to the tv licence issue. The communications act 2003 (quoted by the TV licence officer in the video), section 366, subsection 8 states (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/366):

8) A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a) intentionally obstructs a person in the exercise of any power conferred on that person by virtue of a warrant under this section; or
(b) without reasonable excuse, fails to give any assistance that he is under a duty to give by virtue of subsection (7).

Subsection 7 states:

(7) Where a person has the power by virtue of a warrant under this section to examine or test any television receiver found on any premises, or in any vehicle, it shall be the duty—

(a) of a person who is on the premises or in the vehicle, and
(b) in the case of a vehicle, of a person who has charge of it or is present when it is searched,to give the person carrying out the examination or test all such assistance as that person may reasonably require for carrying it out.

The solicitor I spoke to also said that statute law trumps common law. Maybe Rob Menard (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2F6120DE09473832) would be able to persuade him otherwise in a court of law though. I am really not in a position to judge. Any Avalonian lawyers/solicitors able to shed some light on the matter?

sigma6

14th February 2013, 05:58

Looney Bogey or anyone from UK, can you please pull out your BC and just post what it says on the BC regarding the Identification...!!!??? Thank you....

Conchis

14th February 2013, 10:53

This situation seems almost identical to another post here ( http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?55509-Protect-your-property-go-to-jail--smart-meter-protestors- ) that deals with installing smart meters in the US. In the US the people were arrested pretty much on the spot. I won't get into the free person discussion because I have not followed that logic, but the policeman standing at the door has the ability to, and usually will, exercise their physical control over the people under these kinds of statutes. Statutes modify common law. Common law is the law that is followed in the absence of a specific statute that controls a situation.

I was impressed with the officer stating that he was there only to assure that there was not a breach of peace. The idea that private enterprises have access to the police force to enforce these industry specific laws really is just another brick in the wall. One day we can probably expect the copyright police to show up at your house with a search warrant stating that a confidential, reliable informant had seen illegal copyrighted material in your house and they were there to search for it. The Warner Bros. police force. (are they still in business?)

Bongo

14th February 2013, 12:44

Looney Bogey or anyone from UK, can you please pull out your BC and just post what it says on the BC regarding the Identification...!!!??? Thank you....

I've been trying to find it with no luck so far, if I find it I will post what it says.

The solicitor I spoke to also said that statute law trumps common law.

thats not true, the below explains why

Copy & pasted from here
http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=8989

First and foremost, there is “Law” and there is “Legal”. The only LAW (in England and Wales) is The Common Law. This comes from our innate Common Sense on “how to live together in peace with our neighbours”.

It was first documented – to some extent – in 1215 – in a document called the Magna Carta. Halsbury’s Laws of England states that quite clearly, and refers to the Magna Carta 1215 as the founding document of the British Constitution.

Do NOT be fooled by the Magna Carta STATUTE of 1297. This is a pale imitation of the 1215 TREATY … and anything the 1297 Statute leaves out/ignores … is still in the 1215 Treaty!

In Law (i.e. the Common Law) Truth is Sovereign. It is the most important thing. That’s why, in a Common Law Court, with a Jury … the Jury is only allowed to hear FIRST-HAND knowledge, and has to swear to “Tell The Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but The Truth”. On pain of perjury, if they lie. This system can never be 100% … but it is the best we can do in order to ascertain The Truth.

Because only by ascertaining The Truth, do the guilty get their just desserts, while the innocent go free.

Even today, in High Courts and Crown Courts, we have observed great emphasis, and due diligence, in these aspects of the application of Law.

The only problem, in point of fact, with High/Crown Courts, is that the Judges think they can “direct the Jury to a Verdict”. This is the only bit when it all goes wrong. The British Constitution defines a Jury verdict as sacrosanct and “untouchable” … because the Jury is “making the Law” for that particular circumstance.

The Common Law – THE Law – can ONLY be made by Juries (after hearing VERBAL FIRST-HAND testimony, sworn under penalty of perjury) OR by WRITTEN FIRST-HAND testimony, sworn under penalty of perjury) in a Statement of Truth.

It is not possible “make Law” in any other way.

That’s Law … and LAWFUL. (Remember: The Truth is Sovereign)

Now we come on to “Legal”.

First of all, since the British Constitution and Common Law were ‘founded’ in 1215, then the first recognised “Parliament”, in 1295, was created UNDER The Common Law.

Thus ALL Parliaments exists UNDER The Common Law, and ARE SUBSERVIENT TO The Common Law.

Any Act/Statute that deviates from the principles of the British Constitution is NULL & VOID, in Law.

“Fixed Penalty Notices” are, therefore, null & void and totally UNLAWFUL, by definition … because the Magna Carta 1215 specifically says that “No property shall be removed from anyone - unless based on the Verdict of a Jury”.

Actually most of the Acts/Statutes, that have been passed by various Parliaments over the years, EITHER deviate from The Common Law (and are, therefore, null & void) OR they support The Common Law, and are thus REDUNDANT.

An Act of Parliament/Statute is “Legal”.

Whereas, in Law, Truth is Sovereign, in the case of “Legal” the Truth really doesn’t matter a damn. And that's what makes "Legal" and "Lawful" complete OPPOSITES.

Magistrates so-called ‘Courts’ and County so-called ‘Courts’ operate in “Legal” and – within that room – The Truth doesn’t matter a damn. All that matters is ONE or THREE PSYCHOPATH’S INTERPRETATION of “Legals/Rules” – which will be bent out of as much shape as may be necessary – in order to screw you and rubber-stamp AGAINST you. (The reason is: Instead of standing up for yourself, you should be rolling over, and playing dead … just like they expect you to. And, if you don’t, they will ****ing-well make sure that you roll over and play dead!)

Magistrates ‘Courts’, and County ‘Courts’ are no more “Courts of Law” than a Tennis Court or a Squash Court. In point of fact they are (what is known as) Star Chambers. Historically, a Star Chamber was where you were taken in order to have your life destroyed by a Psychopath. The room would have a Star painted on the ceiling. “Star Chambers” are actually banned (and have been for a very long time) … so they call them a “County” or “Magistrates” Courts.

Clever innit? All they need are “words” … and one thing they are is Master Wordsmiths.

You cannot be in “Contempt of Court” in a Magistrates or County Court … simply because it’s not a Court. IN POINT OF FACT, the functionaries of the Star Chamber (Judge, Magistrates, Clerk, Security, Usher etc.) are THOROUGHLY GUILTY of Contempt of a REAL Court (of Law).

I saw a recent email wherein a Police Sergeant had written to someone as follows:

“The Constitution is not fixed and is subject to variation, amendment and evolution. The Bill of Rights in 1689 limited the powers of the Crown and created a constitutional monarchy, and developed the concept of parliamentary supremacy (that is to say the supreme authority is the Crown in Parliament). The Bill of Rights also enshrined into English law (for at that time there was no United Kingdom) the prohibition on any impeachment for words or deed made in Parliament.”

That is a complete load of bollocks, and shows that the Sergeant knows very little about Constitutions, and even less about Law. And someone on this list will be telling the Sergeant so).

The FACTS are:

Constitutions are fundamentally FIXED, and INVIOLATE. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THEM! In order to modify the Constitution (something a Nation always does with extreme care & caution), it is necessary to hold a Constitutional Conference ... whereby ALL aspects of the Constitutional Amendment are very carefully considered by Constitutional EXPERTS (not 630+ poxy MPs!). It has already been said that "One tampers with a Constitution at one's extreme risk".

When was the last time you heard of the convening of a Constitutional Conference? You didn't hear of one? Well, that would be about right, because there hasn't been one in my lifetime, either.

Consequently, the Constitution stands as written, and I suggest the Police Sergeant (a) Reads it very carefully, and (b) Starts to abide by it ... instead of expecting it to morph into whatever he - or Parliament - currently desire it to be.

"Parliament has nothing whatsoever to do with the British Constitution. (Do you SERIOUSLY think we could leave Constitutional matters to the 630+ expenses-fiddling jokers in the House of Commons?????) .

"Parliament" was created UNDER the Common Law. And was, therefore, created UNDER the British Constitution - the founding document for the Constitution (according to Halsbury's Laws of England) being the Magna Carta 1215.

"Parliament" is, therefore SUBSERVIENT TO the Common Law and the British Constitution. This means that - if any Act of Parliament is passed that contravenes the British Constitution, then that Act is NULL & VOID in LAW

I’ve already given the example of Fixed Penalty Notices which contravene the Common Law and thus the British Constitution. Therefore any implementation of that Act is a CRIMINAL ACT

… FACT!

Now let’s come to the recent case in Worcester. The Judge (Nigel Cadbury) was taken on, a parlayed with. As usual he ignored everything that was said to him, and declared the action (by Guy: of the Taylor family) to be ‘vexatious’. Well, Guy was a bit miffed about another so-called Judge (QC/Purple Robe) attempting to take away Guy’s INALIENABLE Rights. “INALIENABLE” means “IN-A-LIEN-ABLE”, in other words to be capable of being in Commerce.

During this so-called “Hearing-when-no-one-was-actually-Listening”, Cadbury claimed (and this is the second time he’s claimed it in our presence) to “have Common Law Jurisdiction”.

This shows he knows absolutely NOTHING, and here’s the reason why:

Putting aside the fact that Statutes aren't "Law" ... it is IMPOSSIBLE for a SINGLE HUMAN BEING to have "Common Law jurisdiction".

Why?

Because: England & Wales are "Common Law jurisdictions" ... which means that the Common Law applies in those two COUNTRIES.

A COUNTRY can BE 'a Common Law jurisdiction'.

But the application of the Common Law requires a Jury. In other words ... if a COUNTRY IS "a Common Law jurisdiction", then crimes are determined by TWELVE HUMANS ... called a Jury ... or by Statements of Truth signed under pain of perjury.

"Common Law jurisdiction" is something a COUNTRY IS (or IS NOT)

"Common Law jurisdiction" is not something that any single Human Being can 'have'.

The whole point about the Magna Carta 1215 Treaty, was to take “making the Law” OUT of the hands of ONE SINGLE PERSON (i.e. the King, or his subordinates, the Sheriffs and their lackeys the Bailiffs - or some other Tyrant), and place “making the Law-of-the-Land” in the hands of 12 ‘impartials’ i.e. “a Jury of one’s peers”.

The idea (and it was a good idea) is that The Law is all about “living in peace with one’s neighbours” and a Jury would have a good idea how that was done, by simply listening to their in-built Common Sense.

If the Jury – having heard all the evidence & circumstances – reckoned that they would do the same thing themselves – in those same circumstances – then the Accused was NOT guilty. If the Jury reckoned that the Accused “shouldn’t have done that … because they, themselves, wouldn’t have done that”, then the Accused was guilty of a crime.

And this took the whole thing out of the hands of some Psychopathic King (or his Courtiers/psychopathic craven suck-ups).
Grand Juries

The “Creators of Legals” (i.e. “Parliament”) cannot get rid of Grand Juries, and so in the early 1930s they ‘subsumed’ them. They subsumed the idea of a Grand Jury in favour of Magistrates Star Chambers, and the forerunners of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) – and a certain amount of interaction from Police Forces.

Which means that we are back to a few naïve or psychopathic people who can determine who actually gets prosecuted, and for what, and how. (We are back to “The Rule of Man”, rather than “The Rule of Law”).

However, Grand Juries are NOT dead. They are a Common Law mechanism, and can be ‘resurrected’ to replace Magistrates Star Chambers & the CPS.

Then one could place a Complaint to the Foreman of a Grand Jury. The Grand Jury has the power to DEMAND ANY INFORMATION THEY REQUIRE (“National Security” would not count/be irrelevant - BECAUSE A GRAND JURY DELIBERATES/DISCUSSES IN SECRET!), in order to determine whether or not someone should be indicted on the basis of the Complaint. The original idea was a Grand Jury of 23, such that a Majority Verdict of 12 was possible. On the basis of a Majority of 12, someone would be indicted, and stand Trial in front of the regular (Pettit) Jury of 12 … who would have to reach a unanimous Verdict in order to convict.

That was the system (and is still the system in America).

And there is no reason why it shouldn’t be the system once again. Members of the Grand Jury would need to be elected, and thus accountable - such that if they fail to honour Complaints made to them, they can be chucked out for failure to do their job. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A NON-PAID POSITION (i.e. expenses only) in order to reduce the possibilities for 'back-handers'.

sigma6

14th February 2013, 14:26

if I find it I will post what it says
Boingggggg!!!???

I would be carrying a copy of the BC at ALL times. But there you have it. It looks like we are going back to the fundamentals. The BC is NOT identification, it's indemnification. But YOU have to stop using it as identification...

Is there ANYONE from the UK that can type out verbatim the sentence on their BC to illustrate the point about not using the BC as identification??? There's at least one dude/dudette from the UK with a BC!?

vje2

14th February 2013, 14:50

Bogeyman

I hear you loud and clear!
I myself was harrassed big time, visits, letters etc... at the end I decided not to pay any attention.
I eventually rented out my flat and left.
I have not watched tv in years , nor do I owned a TV!

Bongo

14th February 2013, 14:50

Akasha

15th February 2013, 02:44

sigma6

15th February 2013, 03:14

It always gets down to jurisdiction, and we bind ourselves into jurisdiction by "identifying" ourselves. I don't think this thread or any thread can cover the scope. A lot of people think we are being cryptic or withholding info. Nothing of the sort. I am thinking now, looking back that 5 years of personal study is a minimum requirement. I think it is easier today. Because the knowledge is more organized and the focus is starting to converge on the fundamental issues. The down side is there are way, way, way too many, what I call, mid-level "gurus" And this is all about getting the best information. So I will stick with Names I know, people with 10+ years, and who have put themselves out there and are still researching and sharing the knowledge. It will save you years. For me the focus is on understanding the EVERYTHING there is to know about the Birth Certificates (long form, short form) and how that extends out to everything that becomes your identity. I have gone full circle starting there and coming back to there.

That's why it would be really great if ANYONE from the UK would post one sentence on their BC... ANYONE? don't put this all on Loony, would be a great starting point... Anyhow seriously contemplate the FACT, that the Birth Certificate is NOT a form of identification, and what that means. To skip over that and rush head long in is pure foolishness in my opinion... It's not about fighting them, it's about understanding your relationship to the NAME and your rights once you are able to separate your self as a living man from the corporation you operate in the public. Just to understand this fundamentally even first before getting technical about it... I could write several paragraphs as a brief outline... but it would be nice to start with what the BC is....

Anyone from the UK with a BC on this forum? not asking for your personal information... (lol) just the sentence making reference to ... "does not identify the bearer..." etc... Come on lads! (and lasses! ;) would be much appreciated...

Creedence

15th February 2013, 10:24

"This extract is evidence of an event recorded in a register of births. It is NOT evidence of the identity of the person presenting it."

Hope that helps sigma6.

Bongo

15th February 2013, 12:20

sigma6

17th February 2013, 01:38

"This extract is evidence of an event recorded in a register of births. It is NOT evidence of the identity of the person presenting it."

Hope that helps sigma6.

Thank you Creedence... and wow that is even more mind blowing powerful then what I had anticipated.... HOLY COW!!!!

This extract is evidence of an event recorded in a register of births.
It is NOT evidence of the identity of the person presenting it.

Now if we only knew how to use that information to our advantage ... hmm... but there it is folks dangling right in front of you... that is the most beautiful thing... in plain English... They told you what it is NOT... But failed to tell you what it IS!!!

Sometimes it's not what they say but what they don't say...

We also do know for fact it is 'admissible' in a court for evidence, and according to other Acts, it is "evidence of the facts so certified" it is also an "entitlement" ... hmm...

sigma6

17th February 2013, 02:34

The solicitor I spoke to also said that statute law trumps common law.

thats not true..................

Regardless, I suspect (to quote Mad Hatter) those with the "gunz n gold" will ensure it trumps it, lawful or not.

Are you familiar with the FMOTL site which you quoted from, Loony? If so, does Veronica document any success in court in the implementation of what she is professing or is her site just hypothetical?

Cheers.

Well the idea is to not let it get to court, there are many ways to trump the system before it even gets to court. If it does you are right those with the "gunz n gold" are going to twist & turn it to there advantage and due to the many pitfalls chances are they will get the advantage. And because the judge is not on his oath it is not a crime to lie to get you to take responsibility for said crime. But you can in fact put a judge in that situation on his oath, although he will quiz you to make sure you know your stuff, if you don't you will fall victim. Once he is on his oath he can't operate in a De Facto court and has to leave. You can then say "case dismissed" and if the clerk of the court doesn't type it then you say "write that down or you are fired" once that is wrote down the case is dismissed. That comes from memory and it did come from Veronica although I don't know of the success rate in court. If you successfully put a judge on his oath he does have no choice but to leave the court, and if you get the clerk to write case dismissed, to someone reading the transcript through at the courts there would be no doubt that the case is in fact dismissed.

THE JURISDICTION GAME

See that's not half bad but it doesn't get to the fundamental issue. It is probably something that somebody did who did have an idea and decided to take a stab... but again he probably didn't even have the whole picture... I would agree without it filed and ready to be presented as evidence you don't stand a chance and after having filed it is no guarantee, if you don't know how to REBUT ALL PRESUMPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS in the court room. (i.e. final last minute attempts to get you to contract and accept an offer or their jurisdiction...) This post is ideal for me to look up an old email of a list of all the things to do to avoid putting your foot in your mouth (creating jurisdiction) (update: actually I didn't need to but if I do and see some more good stuff I missed I will make another post to bump this for a while...)

But it should also be understood fundamentally. 1) It is true... YOU are not the corporation, but that is just part of it. And for the record they KNOW you are NOT the corporation. They are trying to get YOU to SAY that you are. Then THEY GOT YOU!!! I just recently had an epiphany why the opening move on their part is to always ask you "Who are you?" or "What is your NAME?" or "State for the record your NAME?" etc...

As I was analyzing and breaking this down, due to the nature of words and how our perceptions operate... I realized there are VERY FEW VIABLE answers that will work here... almost ANYTHING you say can very easily snag you into jurisdiction... Thus the reason they ask it is because STRATEGICALLY it is the most POWERFUL MOVE they can make. They always operate military style, or like any adversarial engagement and try to take the advantage immediately. Thus you really don't want to respond to this head on... be like them get "away from it" asap...

"The Game is won or lost in the first moves" (or sometimes before you even show up...") You have to immediately deflect this and show them right from the start you KNOW the game as well... there is more then one answer I am sure... but what I would say today... "ahh..." (think about it very thoughtfully and then say something like) "I can only be the alleged defendant..." Thus my approach is very "defensive" I KNOW I AM OUT OF MY DEPTHS. This isn't about attacking, litigation, collecting for damages, etc.. This is about making yourself "invisible"... to their jurisdiction, outside their reach... Only leave them with their CORPORATE PERSON/NAME Estate/evidence of your security staring them in the face... And I thoroughly understand that this is something that you really have to understand by experience or by a witness to... so I am only speaking from my truth and experience here...

The Jurisdiction Game: Or at least one level of it (believe it or not...)
Here are a few "things" where they "get you" (into jurisdiction) These are technical but I believe they are all accurate, regardless what "they" say...

Do you recognize the charges? - then you are in jurisdiction - only refer to them as "alleged" charges (sorry I don't recognize them as such, as is my right ... nah nah so there... no harm no foul there...) DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE the protection that alleging things will afford you. I believe it is the same in principle as operating "without prejudice" it is an acknowledgment of the other's accusation without agreeing or committing to anything... (NO controversy)

Did you sign the form, for the trial date?... - that is a legal contract you are signing, and would put you in jurisdiction, your signature on paper is always presumed by them that YOU are saying that YOU are the CORPORATE PERSON, and is also evidence of recognition of the charges, etc... I know they don't give options, they are always trying to put you in a catch-22 ...'boxing' you in)... so I would choose court date, if there is any section on what you wish to "dispute" I would only put "discovery, settlement" and authorize (as opposed to signing) "without prejudice" for: [autograph] OR (if you can pull it off...) for: UPPERCASE BC NAME (exactly) (AND MAKE SURE BEFORE YOU "AUTHORIZE" ANY FORM, THAT YOU GET THEM TO PROMISE TO GIVE YOU A COPY!) That should kill it right there, and if it doesn't and you actually get a court date in the mail, you will have a strong leg to stand on IF they send you a court date... since they certainly can't use it as evidence or any presumption of jurisdiction! ... in fact that would be the first document I would demand to see... otherwise you are "signing" a legal contract that puts you in jurisdiction right there! (unless you rebut the presumption...)

Did you show up to court? - that is where they start a presumption again... Well although some have done processes and not shown up, I'm not there yet, my administrative process is weak and I leave everything to the last minute, so I show up under duress (I have no choice) therefore I can only make a "special appearance" and "I also rebut any presumptions and assumptions" and/or waive all benefits and privileges, and/or offers to contract (NO REFUSING)

Don't directly agree to any instruction - this is tricky... Because whatever you do YOU MUST NEVER REFUSE ANYTHING... once they asked me to take off my hat, I stated I had to go to the washroom and just walked out of the court... or they would say please step through the gate to speak into the microphone, and I would ask if there was any legal consequences, now I might just state "as I said I am only here under duress, under special appearance, therefore I am waive any offers... but I will speak louder, is there anybody who can't hear me now? (LOL) and continue on as it is no big deal... and maybe add... "hasn't this matter not already been settled?" or "why hasn't this matter already been settled?" (more on that... but the point is it is always nice to take back the control by finishing with another questions that directs back to YOUR AGENDA... )

"Are you JOHN DOE?" - "I can only be the alleged defendant..." and if you get the chance... "have the documents filed been presented as evidence yet? do you need any more information then what was filed to settle this matter?" Anything else nowadays is instant warrant for arrest, for failure to make an appearance, etc... (they're real a**holes in my city) or real punchy... "are you refusing the offer of settlement?

That is all I can think of off the top of my head... this is more then just memorizing stuff. Although that IS a PART of it... But you need to understand the underlying reason WHY.

The BC is an offer of indemnity. Accept it for value, and return it with instructions for settlement. Infer no opponent, create no controversy, make no claim, accept no offer. You aren't even supposed to be there! And IF DONE RIGHTyou SHOULND'T have to show up... So the only thing TO DO while you ARE there is just make sure they got what was filed or entered into evidence, and ask if they require anything more to settle... and NOTHING MORE

How do you stay out of all the controversy... DON'T ARGUE ANYTHING, just accept everything ALLEGEDLY...
"Were you speeding?" "Allegedly"
"Were you driving without a seatbelt?" "Allegedly..."
"Are you John Doe?" "Are you the defendant or not Mr DOE?" ("Mr" is a presumption of title) "Allegedly... I am the alleged defendant if it pleases your honour?" (lol just thought of that last part, that would be juicy...LOL)

They should either show signs of controlled frustration or go mute...(ie. play along as if nothing is up... looking for another trap to lay...) if you got your "documents" filed and come in like this "they KNOW" you "KNOW" and they will just carry on like nothing... and should find reason to dismiss the thing, you might see the judge/magistrate go after the prosecutor who will be forced to withdraw the charges, etc... but it won't (or shouldn't) be typical... if they are real SUPER HARD A**ES and try to carry along and still charge the Person by handing you something... they are stilling testing you (or you have done something they are "playing on" that they are still trying to tie YOU to the the PERSON. if they try to hand you anything (DON'T ACCEPT ANYTHING THEY OFFER... verbally, physically, if they push a piece of paper on you, don't jerk reflex to even grab it... the game is that literal... point is your words, actions, attitude should be clear. NEVER GET SMART OR LET YOUR GUARD DOWN, it's not over until you are walking out the door...

NEVER REFUSE, instead "I am waiving..." "I am rebutting any and all presumptions..." "I do not consent to .... " and like a good telemarketing script always finish by going back to asking for the sale!!! "Hasn't this matter already been settled?" "do you need any more information to settle this matter?" "Why hasn't this matter been settled already?!"

update: I would add to this the photocopies of BCs with instruction of A4V, for settlement must be filed and called into evidence, before asking is any additional information required, and therefore why has this matter not already been settled and PRIVATELY!

All this is based on the idea that the NAME is the record of an event that is also a property and title, and the long form fits perfectly the definition that it is "evidence of a security" They are clearly showing you the picture of the original Statement of Birth RECORD. That they are HOLDING!...

But that Record is also definitive evidence of your Parent's intention to give you a NAME. Thus the Crown/State/Province is HOLDING something that belongs to YOU! This is a serious liability issue. But the only way that all comes into EFFECT is through an EQUITY Interpretation, (which a proper presentation of the evidence forces them to acknowledge) But once in equity you also can't hold anything against them (unless you can whip up some really good "invocation of equity" docs, but that is a whole other story) Point is, in equity, you can only settle the matter, you can't make demands, ask for damages, although I imagine you could make known any complaints or grievances... (but I would just leave that for now...) So even though you have this superior interest to that title as RESULT of EQUITY... You, by the same token have to ACT EQUITABLY... So you have to release them of any liability and Sue for peace if you want to keep the power that comes with superior equitable interest... As soon as you don't, you just lost the power.... according to the same principles of Equity that gave you those powers in the first place (get it?...) Thus it is the "narrow path"... If you understand Scripture and how Jesus handled it when they were trying to bring him on charges, they are 'secretly' trying to show you how it is done... The Romans created this system... they have spent quite a few centuries working on this machine of theirs... I am not here to underestimate it anymore...

And I always believe there is something in Frank Herbert's Dune symbolism "the slow blade penetrates the shield"... and I also think there maybe something in the test of the Gom Jabbar (to see if you are a human or an animal) What defines a Human? ...is someone who lives according to a principle or philosophy... (like the Bible for example) Why were they trying to breed a Kwisatz Haderach?... The Bene Gesserit were a line of Witches or representatives of the Church, which is already disguised in symbolism, since it is really a Roman Political Power Base, which it was overtly in the book (lol)

links for my own reference:

previous:
Benjamin Fulford's Latest Adventures
History Of Oaths (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?48487-Benjamin-Fulford-s-Latest-Adventures&p=628495&viewfull=1#post628495)

following:
I (Bill) am being impersonated on Facebook
Title is property right, Trustee is liable, Superior Interest is Control (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?56811-I--Bill--am-being-impersonated-on-Facebook.&p=647783&viewfull=1#post647783)

Vitalux

17th February 2013, 04:12

I think this video speaks volumes about peoples refusal to take the time to understand their human rights and protection under common law and human rights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZeiSKnhOBc

sigma6

17th February 2013, 13:24

I wanted to save this for a bump, because I couldn't believe it when you found that video and posted it Vitalux. I had found it a ways back, thought it was pretty good, and then past it on, not thinking much more about it, then lost track of it and couldn't find it again, and the more I couldn't find it the more important I thought it ... and when just you posted it just like that! ...I saw it as a sign... a kind of seredipity... lol... who would have thought to search for "5 Monkeys" (LOL) I just love having those little experiences, we need more of them in our lives.... good show

Nick Matkin

17th February 2013, 15:25

Point of accuracy:

Yes, the TV licence fee is a requirement of owning a TV receiver in the UK. The money goes to the BBC to pay for BBC websites, radio and TV channels. This has been the case since radio broadcasting started here in the 1920s and TV started in the 1930s. The separate radio licence was abolished in the 1970s (or maybe late 60s'.)

This is the price you pay for not having your entertainment interrupted every 12 minutes my intrusive, crass advertising. It means you can actually watch a film on TV all the way through without breaks!! (Though how the young 'hard-of-thinking' manage this when they have an attention span of only 2 or 3 minutes is hard to envisage!)

Any checks are not carried out by the BBC. Those are done by another organization. And as far as I know they have no right of entry. Mandatory rights of entry I believe are reserved only for the police and Customs and Excise.

For those in the US not familiar with British broadcasting, we do also have many, many commercial TV and radio stations, funded by the aforementioned advertising.

I dare say that as even more commercial stations appear (aren't there ENOUGH already?), the percentage of those watching the BBC will gradually decline (well, the BBC does make some of the best programmes seen around the world, I think that is widely agreed) and the BBC's position will become less and less tenable and some sort of scrambling/subscription system will be introduced as the less discerning viewers shout: "Why should I pay for the BBC when I only watch the game shows and reality programmes on commercial channels?"

A TV executive in Bogota, Colombia, once asked me how the BBC was funded. When I explained, he was flabbergasted! "So the TVs still work without a licence?" he asked. Yes, I said. "And almost everyone pays this?" Yes. "Without coercion?" Yes, more or less. "Such a system probably wouldn't work anywhere else. You British must be very honest and law abiding!" Yes, I like to think so, mostly anyway...

Nick

sigma6

17th February 2013, 16:29

The BBC should be paid by the public, all the wealth and value in the public is a result of all the labour and energy and wealth of the people. That wealth doesn't come from the Government, other then their management or trusteeship aspect. This is the greater reality. Them asking for money is the same as the government, it's not illegal, but is not truly necessary. So long as the the people want public television... there is no reason the government (trustee) shouldn't provide it... But probably in their POA capacity, might not feel inclined to completely explain what is really going on... as there are so many things about how trusts operate that we mere plebs have no clue about...

Therefore getting back to the idea of the BC... for those interested in the implications. We can have a lot more control of situations if we understood the fundamental relationship that we have with the BC... Especially if you understand this relationship BEFORE you go handing over POA and identifying yourself either as the LEGAL CORPORATION, putting yourself unnecessarily under the control of the REAL Trustee holding the title, or trying to take on trustee type responsibilities yourself, pretending your are the "OWNER" (becoming a trustee de sont tort at best)

Tell me something, can you show proof of title to anything? How can you? When the title of the Corporate Person/NAME that you used to register or open any account is held by a third party? You don't strictly "OWN" anything (by legal title) that you have registered in the CORPORATE PERSON/NAME that was issued to you, that you are "entitled" to use. So if you don't have title, what do you have? (beneficial use/title perhaps in one interpretation, although I don't want to go there because everyone will get stuck and latch onto that... but this is ONE interpretation, is why you are a "tenant" on property deeds for the same reason.

In any event:
"a person whose birth is registered in [your state/province] is entitled to be recognized by the name appearing on the person’s birth certificate or change of name certificate"
...could mean you are "authorized" (entitled) to contract in the public (be legally recognized), by using an issued REGISTERED NAME (what is it REALLY? = A publicly registered property, a Corporate Entity that represents everything you hold, put value into, that property gets registered under, etc. Your fortune. The title which is held by the Crown/State/Province

This is an entitlement. We have been authorized to use it. But how was not explained and not obviously very well understood. The proof is the fact people want to use it as Identification! Even when they are warned not to? If we can see that part of this is a public Corporation that has been issued to us for our use, secured by the public for our use. And something we shouldn't be using as Identification. (THINK of the implications!!! Then what are they NOT telling us!

Then the question is how should we be using it?... Should we be trying to demand that we are this Corporation (ie. the "owner" of any accounts opened in this NAME? If you opened an account in a Corporation, which had title held by a third party (we can only assume to be some kind of trust) Would you need to be the "owner"? In order to extract any benefit from it? Is that even necessary? If you had a Corporation held in a trust would you have to insist you were the Corporation, in order to use it? Wouldn't that be defeating the purpose?

This "blindspot" (lack of specific knowledge) is the part we fill in with our assumptions and misperceptions, which as the monkey video so aptly makes clear, and as David Icke discussed, (we are a population of "repeaters" of memes) is part of the Matrix that imprisons our minds, by our own doing.

Are most people aware that everything they sign they are giving someone else POA? (Power of Attorney) Have you ever noticed when you demand information about some account you have created with the government, they tell you whether they are giving out information or not!!??... (who gave them that right?) just some thoughts to consider...

This may not be simple to layout in black and white above, as it is has more aspects then I can articulate in one post, but I believe is discoverable. It is just a matter of finding out what all these Judges, Lawyers and cops are keeping so secret in their secret societies... It not about being a genius, it just about learning the truth. Finding out what you have been living with and will continue to live with every day.

Vitalux

18th February 2013, 02:35

sigma6

18th February 2013, 04:23

You are assuming I haven't had my hard experiences, (LOLOL) I just don't give up (not of my own energy, not by my own hand) I have provided links on these types of articles, where I quote "anomalous" events. Study them and learn from them. I see a lot of people using the stubborn argument that since they didn't get the results they wanted in court, they are getting "screwed" I am suggesting that you are getting "educated". 90% of the time people can't get something to "work" on their computer, is because of something "they" don't understand.... not the computer... 90%+ Just my experience... I have stated the average amount to learn anything to a level of sufficiency is a minimum of 5 years. And most who can actually do anything is (beginning of mastery at 10 years)

It is very egocentric to think that just because we don't get what we want in court, it's because of them... Think of how you behave toward others who step into your area of expertise, and yet it is obvious they know nothing, are presumptuous, larking in the dark... Tell me what is your attitude toward such ones??? When we don't accept our own failures as an opportunity to learn, and criticize others for "assuming" there is a solution... This is exactly one of the ways we become one of the "monkeys" creating resistance against others still trying to move forward.

I use your comment to highlight the example of the jurisdiction article above, it is not... cannot... be "definitive"... but to get people started on their own journey, to make the decision to get started today! and to give a sense of things they don't even have a clue about, of course it is far from complete... This is the reality... we should humble ourselves to the fact... This isn't secret knowledge because it's not allowed, it is secret because so few understand... (Mary Croft's book)

I have also been warning others that we are an identifiable group, and that they are changing their strategies against us... If you are not moving forward, you are falling back... instead of focusing on their corruption, apathy (which may or may not be as bad as we think) But going back to fundamental interpretation. No more trying to skip ahead on someone else's paperwork. If I don't understand, I don't use, in any process. period. This will protect you from all the 'huckster' groups out there as well. People say they are taking 'God' out of the system, I don't agree. It is not any more then say McDonald's insisting people not hang pictures of Jesus in their offices and lunch rooms etc... And if Muslims and Jews are getting away with it, that is because they are part of the system (former) or fighting for it (latter)... legally in the courts... evidence of corporate negotiation.

My goal is to find the experience of those who are having success, to focus my way toward that end. It is not all pain and suffering, but for now I experience my share. I hope I never forget it, when I find my success. I believe that is its purpose. As long as you see it as free lunch, free groceries, free property, then you don't understand what is going on... The governments and banks are not sources of wealth, they are trustees of other people's wealth, and rewarded handsomely for managing it (too much perhaps...) But if you don't like someone else having POA how do you solve that problem?

I recognize it as a corporate jurisdiction, statutory. If you look long enough you will find the edge and there you will find a curtain, and if you pull it back, you will find other jurisdictions (ta da!) There's a reason nothing we do works in their jurisdiction... It was designed that way... accept that... Consider 90% of what is being taught teaches you how to try and beat them "at their own game" This is possible but not how I would play the odds...