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

[Creedence]

"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]

Posted by Akasha (here)

Posted by Loony (here)

Posted by Akasha (here)
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.

[sigma6]

Posted by Creedence (here)
"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]

Posted by Loony (here)

Posted by Akasha (here)

Posted by Loony (here)

Posted by Akasha (here)
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

following:
I (Bill) am being impersonated on Facebook
Title is property right, Trustee is liable, Superior Interest is Control

[Vitalux]

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.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=KZeiSKnhOBc

[sigma6]

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]

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]

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]

Posted by Nick Matkin (here)
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'.)

Buddy I can understand where you thinking is...but you are failing to clue in that by the government enforcing this policy, they are screwing your rights as a human being.
Think of the Larger picture.


The BBC can do what ever the hell they like, AS LONG AS THEY DON"T TAKE AWAY OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHTS

they are taking away human rights

Wake up and break out of the monkey cage

[sigma6]

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...