Nautural law Trumps Maritime Law Montana Courtroom

[Referee]

A Strong victory in a Montana Courtroom

follow the link to Ben Swann Here (http://benswann.com/hunger-games-in-montana-man-forces-judge-to-leave-bench-citing-natural-law/?fb_action_ids=531725823591200&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582)

[Dennis Leahy]

...but the follow-up is that he was declared guilty, and fined (I think it was $150.) So, it makes no difference if a soverieign citizen knows their natural rights - the corrupt courts, using maritime law or making it up as they go along, will arrest, convict, fine or incarcerate, (and if the fine is not paid, they will incarcerate.) It is not enough to be right, in a corrupt system.

Dennis

[The Lawnman]

...but the follow-up is that he was declared guilty, and fined (I think it was $150.) So, it makes no difference if a soverieign citizen knows their natural rights - the corrupt courts, using maritime law or making it up as they go along, will arrest, convict, fine or incarcerate, (and if the fine is not paid, they will incarcerate.) It is not enough to be right, in a corrupt system.

Dennis

Following quote is from the “Institutes of American Law 1882, Vol. 2, s. 3724, para. 4.” by John Bouvier.

“Law is nothing without equity, and equity is everything, even without Law. Those who perceive what is just and what is unjust only through the eyes of the law, never see it as well as those who behold it with the eyes of equity. Law may be looked upon, in some manner, as an assistance for those who have a weak perception of right and wrong, in the same way that optical glasses, are useful for those who are shortsighted, or those whose visual organs are deficient. Equity, in its true and genuine meaning, is the soul and spirit of the law; positive law is construed, and rational law is made by it.”

There are multiple jurisdictions in the courts throughout the United States. The "at Law" "legal" jurisdiction which hears all matters relating to the 'de facto" legal fiction corporations. And another being "Equity" which hears all matters pertaining to the substantive rights of the real man. In most states, back in the mid to late 1960's the States legislatures overhauled the the courts form, process and procedures and consolidated the court systems, but these two jurisdictions remain seperate. The problem with the person in the video was that he was bringing his arguments into the wrong court. He was co-mingling the two jurisdictions. This court was a legal fiction venue, not a court of equity. And when people do this they get a similar result. The real living man's substantive rights are not congnizable in an "at Law" court. However, they are cognizable in a court of Equity.

The legal court system is not going to recognize a "special visitation", this is only effective in a Chancery court. Hypothetically, in this case, if it were me...I would file a counter claim in a court of equity, seeking a decree from the Chancellor, stating that I do, in fact, have the substantive right to forage for food, as long as I don't harm anyone or their property. He who seeks equity must do equity and come with clean hands.

BTW - regarding the term "sovereign citizen", either one's a sovereign, or a citizen, one can't be both. ~ Peace

[GreenGuy]

Following quote is from the “Institutes of American Law 1882, Vol. 2, s. 3724, para. 4.” by John Bouvier.

“Law is nothing without equity, and equity is everything, even without Law. Those who perceive what is just and what is unjust only through the eyes of the law, never see it as well as those who behold it with the eyes of equity...

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

― Anatole France

[toad]

...but the follow-up is that he was declared guilty, and fined (I think it was $150.) So, it makes no difference if a soverieign citizen knows their natural rights - the corrupt courts, using maritime law or making it up as they go along, will arrest, convict, fine or incarcerate, (and if the fine is not paid, they will incarcerate.) It is not enough to be right, in a corrupt system.

Dennis

So he was eventually found guilty?

[sigma6]

...but the follow-up is that he was declared guilty, and fined (I think it was $150.) So, it makes no difference if a soverieign citizen knows their natural rights - the corrupt courts, using maritime law or making it up as they go along, will arrest, convict, fine or incarcerate, (and if the fine is not paid, they will incarcerate.) It is not enough to be right, in a corrupt system.

Dennis

Following quote is from the “Institutes of American Law 1882, Vol. 2, s. 3724, para. 4.” by John Bouvier.

“Law is nothing without equity, and equity is everything, even without Law. Those who perceive what is just and what is unjust only through the eyes of the law, never see it as well as those who behold it with the eyes of equity. Law may be looked upon, in some manner, as an assistance for those who have a weak perception of right and wrong, in the same way that optical glasses, are useful for those who are shortsighted, or those whose visual organs are deficient. Equity, in its true and genuine meaning, is the soul and spirit of the law; positive law is construed, and rational law is made by it.”

There are multiple jurisdictions in the courts throughout the United States. The "at Law" "legal" jurisdiction which hears all matters relating to the 'de facto" legal fiction corporations. And another being "Equity" which hears all matters pertaining to the substantive rights of the real man. In most states, back in the mid to late 1960's the States legislatures overhauled the the courts form, process and procedures and consolidated the court systems, but these two jurisdictions remain separate. The problem with the person in the video was that he was bringing his arguments into the wrong court. He was co-mingling the two jurisdictions. This court was a legal fiction venue, not a court of equity. And when people do this they get a similar result. The real living man's substantive rights are not congnizable in an "at Law" court. However, they are cognizable in a court of Equity.

The legal court system is not going to recognize a "special visitation", this is only effective in a Chancery court. Hypothetically, in this case, if it were me...I would file a counter claim in a court of equity, seeking a decree from the Chancellor, stating that I do, in fact, have the substantive right to forage for food, as long as I don't harm anyone or their property. He who seeks equity must do equity and come with clean hands.

BTW - regarding the term "sovereign citizen", either one's a sovereign, or a citizen, one can't be both. ~ Peace


EQUITY in TRUST But Where To Find It...

It is true equity is the superior form of law (we have protected by superior interest in the "NAME" they are trying to "charge"...) there are groups that sing the praises of equity... and quote that phrase as almost a mantra. But still to this day apparently they still argue and debate and never just come out and say how one is to invoke this "court of equity" I am sure there are a few within the group that actually know but they are apparently not allowed to talk about it directly? (not sure of all the finer points, still puzzling through it...) But all day you can check in and they will post quote after quote about the beauty and superior splendour of equity. Each trying to get a more elegant quote then the next... Why they just don't get down to hard nails and say "here is how one invokes equity... " I will never know. Or how to motion for a different court, there is some talk about injunctions, mandamus, etc. I don't know why it should be so difficult but apparently it is some kind of hidden difficult to get at jurisdiction... go figure. Although there is much to show that equity runs concurrently that isn't the same as a 'true' court of equity...

why so hidden and secret?... because the of the whole BC NAME issue... the NAME is many things, in this context, it is a property that has been registered. In equity we are the equitable title holders, and the State/Province is the legal title holder, meaning they are liable in the public where the legal title is seen and they are therefore the liable party. But without being able to "see" your equitable title (superior interest) They will try and construe" a "constructive trust" According to CW in their legal language "construct" is derived from the word "construe". A brilliant insight on the part of CW.

Expressed Trusts vs. Those Created By Operation of Law: (Gilbert's Law Summaries - Trust, 13th ed)

a. Express trusts
An express trust is created as a result of a manifestation of intention to create the relationship that the law recognizes as a trust.
(what we should be doing)

c. Constructive trusts
A constructive trust is a remedial device imposed by a court of equity to prevent a person who has obtained property by wrongful conduct or unjust enrichment from deriving the benefits thereof.
[consistent with de sont tort trustee ?]

Constructive Trust. (Black's Law 4th ed.)
A trust raised by construction of law, or arising by operation of law, as distinguished from an express trust. Wherever the circumstances of a transaction are such that the person who takes the legal estate in property cannot also enjoy the beneficial interest without necessarily violating some established principle of equity, the court will immediately raise a constructive trust, and fasten it upon the conscience of the legal owner, so as to convert him into a trustee for the parties who in equity are entitled to the beneficial enjoyment.

Now look at this definition of de sont torte trustee...

De sont tort trustee:
Person who is not a party to a trust agreement (and has no authority as a trustee) but meddles with the trust property or takes upon himself or herself to carry out acts characteristic of the office of trustee. Instead of prosecuting this person, the courts may hold him or her to be a constructive trustee and, thereby, impose the liabilities of an actual trustee in accounting for his or her acts. 'De son tort' is Latin for, by his (her) own wrongdoing.

[Question: If we are having trusteeship imposed on us via a “remedial device” Who do you think the “actual trustee” should have been or was originally?]


but you are the Settlor (technically, even though your mom informed on you and created the original ink signature document / contract)
Settlor:
The grantor or donor in a deed of settlement.
Also, one who creates trust.
One who furnishes the consideration for the creation of a trust, though in form the trust is created by another./B]


My interpretation: they (the State/Province) are holding the Title to the NAME by holding the original signature document provided by your mom (Statement of Birth) and the hospital record, and then registered these records of an EVENT which in turn was used to create the NAME (sole corporation) a property and Master Account that holds all other accounts and property you may acquire when YOU use IT. Therefore they hold the legal title and are considered the legal owner. You are considered an authorized user. Or you could consider yourself a beneficial owner (but that's another story... ; )

When you walk into a court (as the typical metaphor of interaction) They ask you "Who are you?" (see Wizard of Oz...) or "What is your NAME?" or "State your NAME" Always at the beginning, the purpose being to take away your opportunity to express the true nature of the trust before you even get started! As soon as you claim to be a CORPORATION property, then you take all the liability associated with that. (see "de sont tort trustee" definition) How did that happen? As soon as you made a claim of ownership to a property that they KNOW you don't have the legal title to, you put yourself in a compromising position. And you also blew your chance to state who "YOU REALLY ARE" (the equitable title holder, the principal, the party with superior interest in the registered NAME.. will explain why in a moment...) When you say "I AM JOHN DOE" You are claiming to be the owner. You are claiming to be the Registered NAME which is a wholly separate legal entity and property that they hold the legal title to. [B]They know EXACTLY what it is...

A trust will not fail for the lack of a trustee. In response they "will immediately raise a constructive trust, "and fasten it upon the conscience of the legal owner so as to convert him into a trustee" (that is what you have just become as a result of "your own doing" and that is why they consider that you did it by your "own consent" remember, the ROMAN meaning of SLAVE according to Winston Shrout = VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE? The white plantation owners were mocking the blacks by calling them "SLAVES" (as if it was voluntary) You hear it all the time. The court needs your consent.

When you show that you are ignorant of the fact that all the elements of a trust are present and fail to express your superior position, or maybe claim to be the Grantor / beneficiary as some suggest... or provide instruction on how you want them to settle the matter... you have proven yourself to be incompetent, in violation for making a false claim of BEING the OWNER (1. the NAME is the OWNER and you also have no proof of legal title, and CAN'T POSSIBLY be the "owner" YOU ARE NOT A CORPORATION. Shame on you!!! Thus why they 'have no choice' but to "raise a constructive trust". If you look at the definition of de sont tort trustee. Anyone who has been to court can see this fits the description exactly.

This is the 'secret' This is our failing. This is why Trust law has been removed from the public education system. The last classes being taught in the late 60's
see the link at Evolution is Blind Watchmaker #49 http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?64590-Evolution-is-a-blind-watchmaker&p=753921&viewfull=1#post753921 for this reference and a whole train of thought on the conspiracy.

I listened on one audio lecture that when insurance company's are required to make a payout... they are required to "issue a warrant" It appears to be a formal process of accessing a trust to pay out to the holder of the insurance policy (or certificate) You also hold a certificate. When there is a warrant for the "arrest" of JOHN DOE, you should immediately present the certificate. Because that is the only thing I would make claim. Which goes back to my earlier posts where I shared the story of the girl who answered

“I do not claim ownership of the legal fiction JANE ANNE DOE, but I AM the Executor and President/CEO for the JANE ANNE DOE Estate.” Re: Adam Kokesh violently dragged from public protest by police, arrested for 'resisting arrest' #18 http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?59291-Adam-Kokesh-violently-dragged-from-public-protest-by-police-arrested-for-resisting-arrest&p=685431&viewfull=1#post685431 I don't know it is necessary to go that far, but I do believe we can absolutely settle any liability in the public and we can also even collect any funds created (the bonds) for the beneficiary) .


Links for my own reference:


Previous:
Private Prisons -- Off our radar
Expressing The Trust - The Holy Grail (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?63780-Private-Prisons-Off-our-radar&p=735866&viewfull=1#post735866)

Following:
Comments Removed From Gord Duff's Site...
THE CERTIFICATED SECURITY... (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?66908-Comment-removed-From-Gord-Duff-s-site...&p=777662&viewfull=1#post777662)

[gripreaper]

Sigma is correct. Reread post #6 in its entirety several times until you get it. One must deny ownership of the name, claim beneficiary status to the trust created, as grantor/settler and appoint the judge as trustee, and order him to discharge the matter you are accused of.

Debt can only be created as credit via Federally Chartered Banks, and then can only be routed via trustee towards its eventual return to the Fed, via discharge or its acceptance of value. There is no equity when it comes to public debt instruments, so the patriot guru's need to get off this train of equity.

ALL assets were collateralized against the bankruptcy and the courts are under military jurisdiction and under a state of emergency by executive order, to administer the bankruptcy. The idea of attaching one self to property which is collateralized and held by the state in trust for the elite beneficiaries, forces the constructive trust making YOU the trustee. You lose your status, are presumed incompetent, and become attached to the corporate fiction.

Stick with trust law. It is the only thing left.

[sigma6]

I'm not completely knocking equity... but you are right it's not in the public... that is all the legal title side of things... but equity is like the other side of the looking glass in strange way... it is the more important, yet it is hidden from the public... that's the whole gimmick... I think Trust is natural law too btw, or the closest thing to it... Natural Law means to me, what is essentially scientific law... The nature of relations between parties regarding various obligations and duties in relation to property might be called trust law. Equity is the environment or venue that trust operates in. That's my take right now (which is in a constant state of correction and refinement... ; )

My beef about equity is they make it so difficult to find... (it's truly is the Holy Grail, if you can get there...) What you are proposing Grip is tricky, if not getting more dangerous now that they know we know... They are becoming more proactive... sometimes they will threaten you and not allow you to speak... refuse to accept evidence, bring you into back court rooms away from the public... especially if they know what you are trying to do before hand... There has to be a process where we go from public (probate, commercial, admiralty, military) to private (equity in trust)

That is why that Bill Foust piece is classic... I think now one of the best things I can get the judge to do is "issue a warrant for the arrest of John Doe for failure to appear" which is what they now do in a heart beat as soon as I say I am here on behalf of the NAME... but now I /we know what to do... and it give us the perfect excuse to do it...

Only this time when he says put it back in your pocket, I will demand that he settle the matter immediately and then to also immediately issue a check of any additional resulting proceeds or funds created to be delivered to me for deposit to the beneficiary's account. hahahahah or state for and on the record the fiduciary's dishonour in refusing to accept the instrument of settlement and release the funds (I'm just playing in theory world, I never underestimate all the ways they can stymy things... and there is still the issue of private public)

And ultimately, I have now come to understand the reasoning behind purely administrative process. You showing up to court is considered granting jurisdiction unless you can rebut it immediately and invites them to attack you by trying to construe you into being the surety... Whereas the solution is to send in a copy of the BC A4Ved (it's an offer of indemnity that I want to let them know has been accepted and presented) also the original charging instruments (tickets, summons) AND instructions to settle any and all liabilities in the public (and maybe add on...) issue check of any additional funds for delivery to beneficiary.
This works because they can't deny the evidence of the BC... they can't misconstrue what it is... as there is no other alternative interpretation with you not present... and it guarantees the matter is settled in the private... Having them offset charges against the title to the "Security of the PERSON" they are now holding for you in trust is a private process according to Winston Shrout...

That may be one of the reasons they try to block it and attack you... you're out of order in the wrong court...

object = inherent whole title
- complete ownership and liability


registered object = split of title
- legal title to registrar,
- as holder, liability as trustee obligation

- equitable title to registree,
- right of unecumbered use


It still 'yours' (but you have to refrain from saying that from now on. ie. my house, my car, my this, my that... can't say that for registered stuff because you gave them legal title in trust. So you can say this certificate indicates my superior interest as the equitable title holder... That's the game...

that's why trying to answer who you are is the hardest question to answer... sometimes in this scheme I really don't know who I am... I am that I am.... and oh I was issued this certificate... and I am have been bonded and authorized to use it... for the benefit of the public (for Her Majesty in right of CANADA) (I'm not the beneficial owner)

Can you see the full circuit. It's your access just like Winston said... a transmitting utility. It was set up to transfer your "energy" (the funds borrowed against the bonds they created when they securitized it... to make any necessary transfer of funds to offset any liabilities in the public (discharge) for example you could transfer funds from it to the SIN/SSN account for example ;) there's unlimited potential if we could just get a handle on the thing...

[gripreaper]

I totally agree Sigma. If the controversy is created by them in the public, and you choose not to create joinder (jurisdiction), then administrate it and discharge it administratively.

If it's private, then equity applies. Its all trusts and equity.

[sigma6]

Sigma is correct. Reread post #6 in its entirety several times until you get it. One must deny ownership of the name, claim beneficiary status to the trust created, as grantor/settler and appoint the judge as trustee, and order him to discharge the matter you are accused of.

Debt can only be created as credit via Federally Chartered Banks, and then can only be routed via trustee towards its eventual return to the Fed, via discharge or its acceptance of value. There is no equity when it comes to public debt instruments, so the patriot guru's need to get off this train of equity.

ALL assets were collateralized against the bankruptcy and the courts are under military jurisdiction and under a state of emergency by executive order, to administer the bankruptcy. The idea of attaching one self to property which is collateralized and held by the state in trust for the elite beneficiaries, forces the constructive trust making YOU the trustee. You lose your status, are presumed incompetent, and become attached to the corporate fiction.

Stick with trust law. It is the only thing left.


MARTHA'S VINEYARD

I can now add this post, to clarify one of the concepts... I don't think I want to directly claim beneficiary status. Although there are cases for it I'm sure, I can't say I fully understand that dynamic in its entirety just yet(so focused on the BC as property, and our relation to issue) I know it is one of the "interpretations" but I think it is overly simplistic. And I have never heard anyone break down the BC as NAME relation to user issue satisfactorily. Like for example how does the Beneficiary "order" (or instruct) the Judge to become the fiduciary? Again I know this has been done, and I believed I have even witnessed it happen. (but I didn't have to order anybody, it just "happened" on its own... the trust simply "kicked in automatically"

beneficiary and beneficial owner are not the same thing. Most issues deal with the property. And that deals with ownership. So the issue is really about who owns what... so the basic simple trust model doesn't apply here just the way it is (or doesn't make sense to me completely in this context)

Put simply the the party that takes on the beneficial ownership is the party that pays. Think "owner" and "renter". "Owner" is like the State/Crown ("that's Crown land!") and "renter" is like the beneficial owner. Who pays? Now what if the "renter" is really the owner and the "owner" is now a Butler/groundskeeper/accountant/etc?

note: Remember these really can be very relative terms depending on legal interpretation. who would have thought their BC name is listed as a tenant on a Deed of Transfer in a land registry office?

i.e. this 'agency' looks after the property for you. In fact to simplify his job and protect you, you give him the legal title. Now you can come and go as you please, because someone is looking after the property for you...

But once in a while a charge comes against the house (Estate)... the Butler (Alfred) calls you and says, "hey someone wants to charge the Estate". Oh and lets' say it is not just a little bumpkin house, but actually an Estate with a winery and vineyard on it... What the butler is doing in essence is calling you to get your authorization to pay a "liability in the public" Yes he is holding the legal title and technically he is the "legal title holder" But in this interpretation this is all trust. Because we all know that it was you who originally bought the land and built the winery, etc. In this metaphor it represents your lifes work up to the present. (Technically the BC, because it is based on an actuarial value of your lifetime of labour, is based on your future lifetime of labour, it is a means of attaching some kind of commercial value, to your life, that can be used to create money, credit, to be used in the world of commerce (one of the variables of the matrix) thus why it is securitized and why bonds created, etc. This is the genesis of where all the "money" come from folks about borrowing from the future!)

And let's say this Estate has a Name. Let's call it Martha's Vineyard. You are the equitable party with superior interest. So when Alfred (the butler) calls you to say that XYZ company left a bill for you, how would you like to handle it? You could pay out of your pocket by taking on the ROLE of Martha (Vineyard) or you could tell Alfred to pay it from Martha's Estate!

If you were hauled into court. Because 1000 gallons of wine spill out and poured into a public drainage system and caused damage (got a bunch of rats drunk!) and the clean up cost was $5000.00 And they said who are you? And you said I'm Martha (Vineyard) You just lied, and they could hold you liable for fraud even, because technically you don't even hold the legal title! As punishment what they usually do in the interest of "justice" and pragmatism. Is bind the "title" on you temporarily for your bad behaviour, and make you take on the liability of the Estate. (they will still try and the charge the Estate later too, which is fraud on their part, and behind your back, but that is another story...:0

But if you said instead, "allow me to correct the situation, I hold the certificate of superior claim to the Estate, and I authorize you to charge the Estate $5000 to settle this matter. go see Alfred, and show him the Registration information I have provided and my authorization [signature?] for the purpose of settling this account.

So who are you... the beneficiary? I don't even think it applies here. You are the MAN!! LOL!

Claiming you are Martha would have imposed a constructive trust interpretation, and would have obligated you to settle the matter out of pocket.

Martha is the Estate and "she" (it) is held in trust, with Alfred holding the legal title (acting trustee) So really in this picture Martha is the beneficiary. Because she receives all of Alfred's care for "her" (it's) maintenance. He looks after "her" (it)

We are confusing ourselves with Martha (Vineyard)

In the wine spillage 'eco disaster' and subsequent public charge, who was the defendant. Let's say you were even on the premises and it was YOU who spilled the wine over. It would still be Martha, the Estate (the corporation) that was designed to operate in the public. In order to protect you. That is how corporations are supposed to act. They were created to serve and protect (the holders)

So you could be the Settlor, very similar to Grantor, but Grantor is more the party that provided the consideration and original intention for the trust in the first place. The Settlor follows afterwards and is very close to what we are trying to accomplish Settling matters, accounts, etc. I don't know how much context I have provided but we can now establish the NAME is a party in it's own right. It can be the "defendant in the sense that is the only party they can really see in the public and which they have definite jurisdiction over. But you? that is optional and dependant on YOUR ACTIONS and INTERPRETATION.

the NAME has been set up, ie. registered, held by a third party, multiple accounts set up (I believe) securitized. However they actually do their processes (which I am sure is a trade secret) "charges" can be laid against it, security order become converted into funds, and liabilities are extinguished.



Links for my own reference:


Previous:
Comment removed From Gord Duff's site...
THE CERTIFICATED SECURITY... (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?66908-Comment-removed-From-Gord-Duff-s-site...&p=777662&viewfull=1#post777662)

Following:
What The US Government Doesn't Want You To Know About The Driver's License
WHAT THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS AND ISN'T (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?70728-What-The-US-Government-Doesn-t-Want-You-To-Know-About-The-Driver-s-License&p=832198&viewfull=1#post832198)