[derty]

A local guy went into the ditch. He called for a tow truck. The tow truck notified the sheriffs office. The deputy gave the guy 5 citations. He would not sign any of these so off to the pokey (no DL, no insurance, failure to maintain control, couple others).

So he spent several days in jail and then another man filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus action against the sheriff. The cost to file was $185. The writ was issued to the sheriff and the body produced on Tuesday in court. There were around 12 observers (me included). The prisoner stuck to one basic line: " If I appeared to consent to anything in conjunction with these charges I have never consented and do not consent now."

The prisoner (identified by orange suit, shackles) was asked if the application for writ of habeas corpus was approved by him. His response: " It was my will."

The county attorney questioned whether the third party applying for the writ had standing to do so. The judge also questioned this guys standing but said the statute said that anybody could file for the writ although he thought that this was intended for insane people and minors. They appeared to let this question slide.

Before leaving the topic of the status of the person submitting the application for the writ the judge made a comment that seemed to indicate he had a knowledge of the vendetta that had existed for the past 20 years between the attornor and the one who applied for the writ. The judge was not local and did not seem to be impressed with the local attornor (a former county attornor).

The judge next asked the prisoner if he was the one named in the citations. He was asked this question several times and he would respond only "I am the trustee of *** [insert name here]"

This was not a satisfactory response for the judge as the prisoner was not volunteering to animate the position of the legal fiction charged. To clear up the question of identity the judge asked the attornor if the deputy sheriff or anyone who could identify the prisoner was present in court. Turns out it was the deputy sheriff's day off so there was an hour adjournment of the proceedings while he was contacted and traveled to the court.

When called back into session the deputy took the stand and identified the victim (prisoner) as the "person" he cited. There were several more attempts to get the victim to consent to a contract but he did a good job of sticking to his mantra "I do not consent". In the end the guy was released on his own recognizance without posting bond. Although he did nod his head when told "You must appear on the court date to hear these charges or a warrant will be issued for your arrest and you will be charged with contempt" (another contract offer which he appeared to accept) the prisoner ended by saying on the record " If I appeared to consent to anything in conjunction with these charges I have never consented and do not consent now."

With this he was declared free to go after spending 7 days in jail. Future court date set for early January. There was additional paperwork that had been submitted to get the filing fee returned. The attornor made some comments that indicated he took exception to the return of this fee.

I have to admit that the judge worked pretty hard to get the victim to engage in a contract. I think he closed the proceedings without succeeding.

And the rest of the story ... This was a black guy, one that the system had been set up to "protect".

[Kk21pwa9]

I hope you won't consider this a derail, as it is somewhat related.

I am on a volunteer fire department and we got called out to a one car accident one night. It was a pickup that had gone through a ditch and barbed wire fence. The kid driving was uninjured. The owner of the fence knew the driver and they were both satisfied to settle damages without involving the police/courts. The pickup had a flat tire and minor sheetmetal damage.

The deputy tried pretty hard to get the kid to admit to speeding or inattentive driving, but the kid wouldn't budge. He claimed he was going 55 and swerved to miss a deer. The skid marks were consistent with his story. The catch is that no one has ever gone the speed limit or below on this road. Most people drive 65-75 and I'm sure this guy was too. But, he wouldn't admit it and the cop eventually let him go with no ticket.

As a final show of pettiness, the cop called a tow truck even though the kid wanted to put on a spare tire and get on his way. Several of us offered to help, but the cop said "No, I've already called the tow truck and we'll let him deal with it." I've wondered if that was a suggestion or an order. What if we had put the tire on anyway? Would we have been cited or arrested? Also, could the kid have met the tow truck and told him to go home and send the bill to the county? They requested it, he didn't.

[AlexanderDrew]

He was asked this question several times and he would respond only "I am the trustee of *** [insert name here]"

I think these could be relevant here in regards to the "I am the trustee of ****" comment he made.

Pretty informative if anything.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DL_A...eature=related



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb6X7...eature=related



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN8Hi...eature=related



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGdWQ...eature=related

[heilyprollecyspor]

Talking to legal fictions is the first sign of consent. And unless you know what you are doing, you will likely find your self in the web of the man in a funny costume.

Silence is GOLDEN.

[forotis]

What if we had put the tire on anyway? Would we have been cited or arrested? Also, could the kid have met the tow truck and told him to go home and send the bill to the county? They requested it, he didn't.

First forget the idea that there are any public officers at all in office. These folks are all private and they operate in commerce. The coppice man probably got a kickback from the tow company he called. As to being cited or arrested? This can happen if you are anywhere within spitting distance. The goal is that the coppice man continue to fund his retirement while continuing to pay his own mortgage.

There are two types of criminal actions ... common law and admiralty. Common law crimes require a corpus delecti, someone injured. Admiralty crimes require a contract to be inforced. There are no other criminal jurisdictions. If told that you are in a statutory jurisdiction you might ask where you can find the rules for this jurisdiction (there are none).

could the kid have met the tow truck and told him to go home and send the bill to the county? They requested it, he didn't. My opinion? You aren't forced to pay bills when you have requested no service.

[Nopayof]

Silence is GOLDEN.

Attorneys are the only ones to argue in court. This action requires a license. Shut up. If you have anything to say you want to say it in the paperwork. If anyone asks a question about the paperwork you say "it's all in the paperwork".

The other side wants you to come out and play with them. As soon as you do you lose and they get to fund their retirement.

[desmond001]

What does that mean? If you were raised under the name "Hugh Jorgan" and they were asking you if you are "Hugh Jorgan", would you be correct in replying "I am a trustee of hugh Jorgan"?

I have heard of cases where the "defendant" says "I am Hugh of the Jorgan clan, a Human Being and God's creation.".

Thoughts?

[aAaBecker]

What does that mean? If you were raised under the name "Hugh Jorgan" and they were asking you if you are "Hugh Jorgan", would you be correct in replying "I am a trustee of hugh Jorgan"?

I have heard of cases where the "defendant" says "I am Hugh, or the Jorgan clan, a Human Being and God's creation.".

Thoughts?

They want you to animate their legal fiction. Your birth certificate establishes a corporation. Corporations are formed under the executive branch of government. Government itself is a trust (charitable ... the only type of trust that can run longer than 99 years). They distinguish their creation from others by only using CAPITALS. When they speak your name you can't tell if their utterance is capitalized or not. If you answer "HERE" then you are THEIR creation and THEY can control you. Other than that, everything said from the bench is a contract offer. If you want to accept go ahead and prepare to lose. Otherwise you play your own game (keep-away).

In chess the goal is put the king in check. Not to kill him but to place him in stir (gaol).

[cymnPrayerm]

Other than that, everything said from the bench is a contract offer. If you want to accept go ahead and prepare to lose. Otherwise you play your own game (keep-away).

Keep away from court? that's obvious. What if you're drug into the sytem, like this guy who was jailed for 7 days?

[fujitsusi]

Keep away from court? that's obvious. What if you're drug into the sytem, like this guy who was jailed for 7 days?

They always like to test you. Purpose is either to see who you are, see if you can hold your mud or if you would care to donate to their retirement (raise revenue).

The only magistrate that has the power to summons holds the title "chief magistrate". This would either be a president (if you acknowledge one) or governor. All other magistrates might have the power to issue warrants for arrest but cannot make you appear if you are not there. The reason for this is their "purported" function is to maintain the peace and if you aren't there then you must not be disturbing it. The only way you can disturb the peace is by making an appearance. (you also create a person by making an appearance ... the reasons regarding failure to appear and to not exist are the same).

Now if summoned and you don't appear they can always issue a warrant if they want you badly enough. Yet the warrant cannot give as a reason that you did not appear because that is no crime. This changes when you volunteer to appear and then don't or when placed under arrest such as this gentleman when he does not want to assure the coppiceman that he will appear by signing the summons. He has an action for false imprisonment and should collect some money from them.

[RogerButton33]

Now if summoned and you don't appear they can always issue a warrant if they want you badly enough. Yet the warrant cannot give as a reason that you did not appear because that is no crime.

They issue warrents for arrest due to "Failure to appear" all the time. Is that only because whoever was involved had already signed some sort of contract previously? (Ticket, incitation, etc)

So then, if you refuse to sign and you are jailed, and then released, and you fail to appear (at the date they demand you to appear on), you're saying you're not part of their machinations because you never signed thereby never consented to begin with?

Do people actually get to walk away from the "legal" system this way?

This changes when you volunteer to appear and then don't or when placed under arrest such as this gentleman when he does not want to assure the coppiceman that he will appear by signing the summons.

For instance, if you got a speeding ticket, and refused to sign it, you're not consenting to taking part in their system?
What if you refuse to sign and they jail you? You have to play the game at their leisure at that point. Just don;t sign anything? What "Forces" them to let you go free?

He has an action for false imprisonment and should collect some money from them.

I agree, but what are the chances he could get any?

[Intiltern]

And if Hugh Jorgan wanted to just be on his way and not get jailed for 7 days, could he have signed it "Hugh vi et Armis", and would that have helped him escape the sticky web of the corrupt legal system?

Thanks Palani. I'm a retard with this stuff.

[autoloanexpert]

They issue warrents for arrest due to "Failure to appear" all the time. Is that only because whoever was involved had already signed some sort of contract previously? (Ticket, incitation, etc)

In my estimation, yes. If you had no obligation to appear then why would you unless you had previously agreed.

Also, in private law (aka civil) you may be summoned as well. First you will have had to "accept" service. Many believe that it takes 72 hours for such service to become "set".

In the U.S. of A. Law (common Law) and Equity have merged. Law requires an injury. Equity requires no injury. A Law judge (as a panel ... not a single judge) can command things be done. An Equity chancellor can assign contempt. Contempt can punish you far longer than a punishment might.

So then, if you refuse to sign and you are jailed, and then released, and you fail to appear (at the date they demand you to appear on), you're saying you're not part of their machinations because you never signed thereby never consented to begin with?

If you signed nothing and by your actions and behavior showed you have no intention of engaging them in commerce you MIGHT escape the system. They have limited resources and only pursue things they can make money on. However, one of the things they make money on is bonds. It is what pays for prison guards, food, clothing, lights, gas etc. If you are capable of being bonded (have a SSN) then prepare to receive the benefits of that SSN account. This includes paying for incarceration.

Do people actually get to walk away from the "legal" system this way?

The ONLY way to walk away is to be judgment proof (have no assets that can be sold) and to be unBONDABLE. There are such people. Some people who have assets and are bondable also get out of the legal system too but this is less sure (again ... my opinion).

For instance, if you got a speeding ticket, and refused to sign it, you're not consenting to taking part in their system?

If you hand the coppiceman your DL I think you already consented. No signature required ... they already have it ... and it is off to gaol.

What if you refuse to sign and they jail you? You have to play the game at their leisure at that point. Just don;t sign anything? What "Forces" them to let you go free?

If you don't accept booking they will be responsible for your health and safety. They will likely keep you away from the general population. In the meantime your cell will be cold, there will be loud noises and bright lights, in general an environment to guarantee your discomfort. I wouldn't accept any food from them. It might be a good time to go on a starvation diet and lose some lbs. If you break bread then you are sending a message that you accept their hospitality (at around $60 a day). Otherwise they are going to pay some for your lodging. If you do get into general population you can make it expensive for them by educating a lot of people who have lots of time on their hand.

File a habeas corpus every day. Hand it to the jailer with instructions that he is to give it to the sheriff. They are really in trouble if they ignore these things. You go after the bond of everyone involved and put them out of business. (no bond not work).

I agree, but what are the chances he could get any?

Pretty good. These things get their attention. Collect on their bond a time or two and the insurance rates go up. State then gets dumped.

[mloversia]

And if Hugh Jorgan wanted to just be on his way and not get jailed for 7 days, could he have signed it "Hugh vi et Armis", and would that have helped him escape the sticky web of the corrupt legal system?

These commercial presentations may always be refused up to 72 hours. If you sit on it you accept it.

Vi et armis should be used where actual force was involved and guns are out. I can say that happened to me so I use it whenever the state wants me to do business with them. To put yourself in this position just ask the coppiceman if he has practiced with that sidearm he carries. If you responds "yes" then you can rest assured that he has just told you he is a trained killer and you are his target next.

[Roker]

Thanks again Palani. Most of it is over my head still (for example a "Law judge as a panel" would imply a group of people? and I don't know what an "Equity chancellor " is... is that a lawyer? Prosecutor?)

So what about this?

And if Hugh Jorgan wanted to just be on his way and not get jailed for 7 days, could he have signed it "Hugh vi et Armis", and would that have helped him escape the sticky web of the corrupt legal system?

Thanks Palani. I'm a retard with this stuff.

EDIT Thanks I see your reply.
So you mean you could sign it "Hugh vi et armis", and and then go to the station after work and contest it within 72 hours, and say you were under duress?

[Unjucky]

I don't know what an "Equity chancellor " is... is that a lawyer? Prosecutor?)

He looks like a judge and would probably tell you he is one.

Hugh vi et armis", and and then go to the station after work and contest it within 72 hours, and say you were under duress?

You can cancel any commercial agreement within 72 hours even if you signed as you normally would. I wouldn't advise using your naked signature though. Once you have provided them with a signature the statute of fraud no longer applies unless you use "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" or "UNDER PROTEST". To use these you HAVE to know what they mean ... UCC 1-308.


For example, if a roofer gives you an estimate and you give him a naked signature (meaning to you that you had received the quote) after 72 hours if you have not refused the work he can go ahead and start giving you a new roof. WITHOUT PREJUDICE means your signature conveys no acceptance with it and it should be ignored.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/article1.htm

If you are in an accord and satisfaction arrangement WITHOUT PREJUDICE won't work (para. b of 1-308.). So with UCC you had best know what you are involved in. That is why I like vi et armis. It tells them you know you are dealing with dishonorable people.

You don't need to be under duress to cancel a contract. If a vacuum salesman shows up at your door and sells you a new vacuum you have 72 hours to send it back.

[Accor$314]

I like these threads Palani, because they always get me thinking. You have to try to remember that you're talking to someone with Zero background in law, so I find I get lost easily. For example the Equity Chancellor being a "judge"; I would have had no clue if I didn;t ask you about that directly.
'

You can cancel any commercial agreement within 72 hours even if you signed as you normally would. I wouldn't advise using your naked signature though. Once you have provided them with a signature the statute of fraud no longer applies unless you use "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" or "UNDER PROTEST". To use these you HAVE to know what they mean ... UCC 1-308.


For example, if a roofer gives you an estimate and you give him a naked signature (meaning to you that you had received the quote) after 72 hours if you have not refused the work he can go ahead and start giving you a new roof. WITHOUT PREJUDICE means your signature conveys no acceptance with it and it should be ignored.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/article1.htm

If you are in an accord and satisfaction arrangement WITHOUT PREJUDICE won't work (para. b of 1-308.). So with UCC you had best know what you are involved in. That is why I like vi et armis. It tells them you know you are dealing with dishonorable people.

You don't need to be under duress to cancel a contract. If a vacuum salesman shows up at your door and sells you a new vacuum you have 72 hours to send it back.

OK, now pretend you're talking to a 5 year old when you respond to this:

So if I got a fine for urinating in public, and felt threatened by the cop who was issuing it to me, and signed it as "Hugh vi et armis", and then go to the police station the next day, and tell them I want to cancel this "contract" (Which they consider a fine), what is the expected response from them?

What are the chances they will quash the fine?

[Nabeqiv]

the Equity Chancellor being a "judge"; I would have had no clue if I didn;t ask you about that directly.

When they were separate jurisdictions these two types of "law" were always at odds seeking an advantage. If you couldn't find relief in Law you went to Equity. If you could find relief in Law you forgot Equity.
'

So if I got a fine for urinating in public, and felt threatened by the cop who was issuing it to me, and signed it as "Hugh vi et armis", and then go to the police station the next day, and tell them I want to cancel this "contract" (Which they consider a fine), what is the expected response from them?

I wouldn't appear to do it. Just drop it in the mail and tell them after giving due consideration to the matter you have decided not to become involved. Address it to the clerk of the court you are being directed to because they are the ones who are going to issue a warrant when you don't show up.

What are the chances they will quash the fine?

What fine? You haven't been found guilty of anything.

Your demeanor will take care of a lot of this cr*p for you. When first approached ask the coppiceman for his business card. Chances are he won't have one. Then ask him if he is a public employee. Chances are he is going to tell you he is. Then put him on notice that you are going to hold him in the position of a public trustee. This should reverse the roles and he ought to wish you long life and a happy day.

[machpamb]

But by asking him if he is a public employee, and then notifying him that you are holding him in the position of public trustee, are you not implying that you are part of the public that employs him, and therefore taking part in the machinations?

[cenRealliat]

But by asking him if he is a public employee, and then notifying him that you are holding him in the position of public trustee, are you not implying that you are part of the public that employs him, and therefore taking part in the machinations?

Not at all. If hauled into court they presume that YOU are the fiduciary in the trust arrangement known as a constitution and that the only reason that you are there is that you breached the trust. All duty is on the fiduciary. The beneficiary has no duty at all except to reap the benefits.

Statute law controls those who have a duty to follow it. That would be the fiduciary. Their statutes tell you how they want THEIR officers to behave. By identifying this fellow as a fiduciary you let him know HIS limitations and not yours.

Some people use a more formal approach to canceling tickets. It is called a common law abatement (abate a nuisance). Ticketslayer has this method documented pretty well for a small fee although if you search around you might find it for free as well.