There is an old warning promoted by the private Guilds of the Bar that presently control access to the law in almost every country, through their private courts and their private (case law) laws: “he who represents himself in court has a fool for a client”. In a sense, this is partially true on two fronts: knowledge of the law and courts and the genuine assistance of lawyers, barristers and attorneys.
So any decision to hire a lawyer, barrister and attorney should be based on a clear assessment of your situation, on clear facts of the legal industry and on knowledge of the true function and symbolism of appointing a lawyer, attorney or barrister when you go before the courts.
Above all, no one should rush one way or another to immediate appoint legal counsel without knowing clearly what they are doing, nor should anyone consider broad generalized and untrue claims that lawyers, attorneys and barristers are out to trick you and hurt you.
The vast majority of lawyers, attorneys and barristers are good people. Most entered the law, because they sought to make a difference. Yes, there are a few lawyers, attorneys and barristers that make phenomenal amounts of money, as well as those who have terrible reputations as being totally devoid of any morals or ethics. Yet the vast majority of lawyers, attorneys and barristers do not make huge sums of money and genuinely seek their best to help their clients to their maximum ability within the constraints of the rules of the private Guild of the Bar.
With these facts in mind, let us consider then the issue of the case for having legal representation from members of the private Guild before the private Guilds courts and the case against such representation. But first, let us look at the definition of what exactly is a lawyer, an attorney and a barrister?
The real meaning of lawyer, attorney and barrister
Like many legal terms, there appears an “official” version and definition of a word and then a hidden “true” definition of the word.
The need to search and comprehend these “hidden” and “secret” meanings would not matter if not for the fact that these secret and hidden meanings to key legal terms have real effect in the private laws of the private courts of the private guild. Therefore, it is paramount to realize the true definition of Lawyer, Attorney and Barrister if one is to make an informed judgment about the best course of action.
The word Lawyer is from the late 16th Century combining the Latin words lar/lares = (customary law) + iuro/iurare = (to swear, take an oath, to conspire) meaning literally “one who has sworn an oath to customary law (of the private Guild)”. The popularized meaning is “one who is authorized and licensed by the private Guilds of the Bar to practice law”.
The revelation of the real meaning of Lawyer is extremely important as it exposes that the role of the lawyer is more than simply an “agent”, but actually one who has made an oath to the private law of the private Guild first. This is critical as it means a lawyer by definition is duty bound to uphold the name and honor of their secret Guild above all other interests first meaning that when they enter the private commercial exchange of the Guild known as a “court”, they cannot possibly serve your interests ahead of the private Bar Guild, thus meaning lawyers are perpetually in a state of conflict of interest and dishonor.
The word Attorn or Attornment is from 16th Century combining the Latin words at = (to) + torno (turn, round off) meaning “To consent, implicitly or explicitly, to a transfer of a right.” Hence the word Attorney means literally “a person to whom rights have been transferred by consent, implicitly or explicitly”.
This revelation of the real meaning of Attorney is quite a bit different to the benign sounding claimed meaning “one appointed to represent another’s interests” as it does not make clear the real transfer of rights. Thus, granting “Power of Attorney” is granting one’s rights to another. As we will discuss later, the appointment of an Attorney for representation has deep implications on the limits of defense, particularly rendering much of the knowledge explained in these articles and knowledge of law irrelevant as a source of defense.
The word Barrister is from the late 16th Century combining the Latin words baro = (dunce, incompetent) + sto/stare (to stand firm, to be in position) meaning literally “to stand/represent a dunce/incompetent”. The popularized meaning is “a student of the law (of the private Guild) that has been called to the Bar”. Of the three words discussed so far, the revelation of the real meaning of Barrister is the most revealing and hence the most secretive for it reveals the specific implication of being represented by a Barrister meaning you by definition are deemed “incompetent”.
Now some may dispute the true origins of these words, especially some professionals known by such names. However, the etymology of words is difficult to hide when phonetics and meaning can be forensically determined through careful provenance.
There are of course a whole range of extreme claimed definitions for these same words, just as there are myths associated with the historical role of attorneys and barristers honoring a tradition dating back to Roman times. In fact, such stories and myths are just that – myths and deliberately false history as the role in Roman times now claimed by Attorney’s and Lawyers was called an Advocate and had nothing to do with the purpose of secretly declaring the defendant “incompetent”.
The word Advocate is from ancient Latin advocatio combing two even earlier Latin words ad (with)+vocare (voice) meaning literally “to assist in legal defense with one’s voice”. An Advocate was usually a professional actor, trained in the art of oration who then swore a solemn oath upon their testicles (from which we get the word testimony) to speak the truth as given by their client.
Advocates were not permitted to offer legal advice, only to speak on behalf of their client.
In contrast, Attorneys are not required to pledge any kind of oath to uphold the interests of their clients first and in most cases will outright refuse. Similarly, Barristers in almost all cases will outright refuse to swear an oath to uphold the interests of their clients. As for lawyers, they are prevented according to their license to practice law to swear any such oath and if such an oath was given it would be proof of perjury capable of being presented to a private Guild court.
The modern legal system hijacked by the private guild of the Bars has absolutely nothing in common with ancient law or the principles that sustained the law of civilizations for millennia nor the historic role of the Advocate. Instead, if you hire a lawyer, an attorney or a barrister they are duty bound to serve the interests of their private Guild ahead of you, despite any promises to the contrary.
The case for hiring an attorney, lawyer or barrister
While the previous definitions may imply that to hire an attorney, lawyer or barrister would be a fatal mistake, the truth is there are good cases for hiring one or more, depending upon your knowledge of law, the matter of the controversy and your financial position.
If you are new to this information, cannot recited the Canons of Law defined by One Heaven and am not confident in public speaking or lack the self discipline to behave honorably and respectfully in court, then being represented by an attorney, lawyer or barrister may well be a good thing.
The most dangerous traits within a private court of the Guild is incompetence, arrogance and ignorance. Far too many people have lost everything and gone to prison because they believed they could enter into the private courts of a private guild under private law and usurp their public persona by behaving without respect, without competence and in complete ignorance.
The truth movement is littered with “remedy gurus” who even today preach defiance, dishonor, arrogance and completely incompetent “remedies” as the way to “win” at court. If you are someone who is trapped by such thinking and unwilling or unable to change then an attorney, lawyer or barrister would almost certainly be a better option than continuing to act in such stupidity.
Another reason for hiring and attorney, lawyer or barrister is if you have sufficient funds and the matter is not serious. You may be angered by the cost, but in many cases, the cost of using the members of the private guild to interact using the private laws of the guild in the commercial exchange (court) of the guild is cheaper than thinking you can defend yourself, particularly if you have lots of assets.
There are far too many examples of intelligent people who thought they could save a few thousand dollars defending themselves on a relatively minor matter in a guild court, only to find the court – upon sniffing assets and property to be stolen – resulted in major court issues, losing their assets and ending up with nothing.
This is not a threat, nor a generalization, The private courts of the guild are expert at “lawfully” stealing assets, particularly of those who they feel wish to “play” in their private realm. Unless you are completely competent, have your assets beyond the reach of the Bar and are willing to see some feathers fly, appointing attorneys, lawyers and barristers is probably a better option.
The final reason and a genuine reason is the fact that despite of the genuine corruptions and bias of the private Bar guild in all aspects of the law, most lawyers, barristers and attorneys are good and honorable people, who can genuinely help.
Unfortunately, the private guild does not hold its worst apples to account, nor promote any kind of stringent quality control to distinguish good attorneys from bad. However, to brand all lawyers, judges and members of the Bar as corrupt would be an absurdity and a grave insult to the outstanding public service and reputation of the vast majority of these people.
So consider these points in whether representation by members of the Bar is warranted in your situation
The case for not hiring an attorney, lawyer or barrister
Based on what has been discussed, the case for not hiring a Lawyer, Barrister or Attorney may appear self-evident. However, let’s review some real and concrete examples.
The first is competence- not knowledge and competence of the private (case law) laws of the private Guild, nor statute law nor court procedure, but competence in knowing who and what you are, including publishing your Ecclesiastical Deed Poll to Vital Statistics as asserting your Divine Rights.
If you are such a man or woman who has demonstrated such competence and is capable of acting with self discipline, respect and honor then self representation may be a sensible and logical option, no matter how grave the alleged charges.
A second logical reason, providing one is competent is options for remedy. By the very definition of what is a lawyer a barrister or an attorney, when one appoints a member of the private guild to represent you, you are in most cases declaring yourself in their courts as “incompetent” – something that severely limits your options for remedy.
In fact, an incompetent is severely limited by what can be negotiated in a private court of the private guild according to their private laws.
In most cases, an incompetent is not permitted to object to procedure (because they are incompetent), they are not permitted to argue points of law, nor even is any non-consent regarded as legitimate.
However, a competent person is able to object to fraudulent procedure, is able to respectfully argue jurisdiction, is able to not-consent or comply by necessity without consent and even to object to any offer and suggest a counter offer.
While such options are available to a competent person capable of self-representation, in some countries the private Bar has succeeded in the ultimate injury to the law by not even permitting self representation. So, such a course of action is not without its risks.
Another reason may appear to be cost. However, the cost of legal representation versus self representation is actually a false reason. Instead, any such judgment should be based on competence and the points considered earlier and not simply on cost.
Attorney as Counsel
The word Attorn or Attornment is from 16th Century combining the Latin words at = (to) + torno (turn, round off) meaning “To consent, implicitly or explicitly, to a transfer of a right.” Hence the word Attorney means literally “a person to whom rights have been transferred by consent, implicitly or explicitly”. Therefore, no Attorney can be Counsel without deliberately injuring the law and perverting the course of Justice.
Barrister as Counsel
The word Barrister is from the late 16th Century combining the Latin words baro = (dunce, incompetent) + sto/stare (to stand firm, to be in position) meaning literally “to stand/represent a dunce/incompetent”. Hence the meaning is “a student of the law (of the private Guild) that has been called to the Bar”. Therefore, no Barrister can be Counsel without deliberately injuring the law and perverting the course of Justice.
Lawyer as Counsel
The word Lawyer is from the late 16th Century combining the Latin words lar/lares = (customary law) + iuro/iurare = (to swear, take an oath, to conspire) meaning literally “one who has sworn an oath to customary law (of the private Guild)”. Hence the true and original meaning of a lawyer is “one who is authorized and licensed by the private Guilds of the Bar to practice law”. Therefore, no Lawyer can be Counsel without deliberately injuring the law and perverting the course of Justice.
Judges, Lawyers and members of the Bar are not bad people
Judges, lawyers and members of the Bar Guilds are not generally bad or evil people. On the contrary, many dedicate their spare time to help the less fortunate in the community as well as actively participate in the support of non-profit organizations. Instead, they have been carefully educated and indoctrinated into a system where they are completely ignorant to its real history, its function and the fact that the law is secondary to the Bar than making a profit from the commercializing of sin.
The origin of the Clerk
The word Clerk is a shortened derivative of the Ecclesiastical word Cleric from the 13th Century Latin word Claricus meaning “Roman priest possessing administrative skills and powers” or literally “One who belongs to the clarus” with the word clarus meaning “illumination of sight, clear voice and sound mind”. The claim that the word originates from ancient Greek is a complete fabrication of the 15th and 16th Century.
In 1275/1276 Rudolph I Hapsburg in Switzerland and Edward I of England with the assistance of AntiPope Gregory X (1271-1276) simultaneously declared "usury" or the charging of interest and financial transactions -- vital for trade and business for thousands of years -- a mortal sin for any Christian punishable by death and then proceeded to place all financial and banking transactions in the hands of “Jewish” Khazar/Magyar families from Venice and Genoa by appearing to “press-gang” them into the service of the Roman Cult as the infamous servi camerae ("serfs of the treasury"). Thus the greatest financial monopoly system in Civilized history was born as an unholy organized crime alliance that has continued until this present day. While the public were only permitted to now deal exclusively with Khazar/Magyar banking families for all their financial transactions now able to charge extraordinary amounts of interest, compared to the ancient limit of three percent, the Roman Cult developed a private interface with the servi camerae ("serfs of the treasury") called the cancellorum, later called the “chancery” meaning barrier, grating or enclosure administered by a claricus or simply a “clerk”.
The Chancery was both a legal barrier, an interface to the servi camerae as well as a physical place within a church, usually behind the main altar and the site of various shrines. It was here that the claricus or “clerk” would sit and perform the ecclesiastical financial duties of the church such as the sale of indulgences. Over time as the sophistication of indulgences grew into forms of Bills, Promissory Notes, Certificates and other instruments, the clerk was granted a permanent “office” particularly in the development of permanent Roman law courts.
The role and powers of the clerk of courts
The literal definition of “court” in the context of a Roman Court is the Latin word cautio meaning a place controlled by a private
(Roman) guild for the production of bailments, securities and bonds.
Thus the role of a Roman Court has always depended on the skills and loyalty of an ecclesiastical claricus or “clerk”.
The clerk is responsible for the paperwork associated with any matter, including the financial administration associated with trusts, ensuring such transaction remain secret in accordance with their secret oath of office that is in perpetual conflict with any public oath. Clerks are also responsible for the preparation of official documents of the court and their transmission.
However, the clerk also possesses extraordinary powers as custodian of the names and rolls of a district or region consistent with the history of the clerk as a senior administrative official of local communities.
In 1834, British Parliament introduced the Poor Law Amendment Act (1834) which reorganized Church of England parishes into unions which were then be responsible for the poor in their area and administered by a Board of Poor Law Guardians, also known as the Board of Guardians. The Board was assisted by a new office known as the Clerk of the Board of Guardians, also known as the “Clerk of the Guardians” being an additional title granted to the existing local Clerk of the Peace responsible for administering the records and matters of the Magistrates Court of the area.
The Clerk of the Peace, assuming the powers of Clerk of the Guardians as well as Clerk of the Magistrates from 1836 onwards was granted even greater power as the Registrar of the Court of Record and responsible for the accurate recording of births, deaths, marriages and events within the parish union. Importantly, the Clerk of the Guardians was said to be “in custody” of all persons on the poor rolls on account of their name being registered at birth.
From 1871 onwards, the Board of Guardians and Clerk of Guardians were granted even more guardian responsibilities with the creation of “districts” called Sanitary Districts governed by a Sanitary Authority responsible for various public health matters including mental health legally known as “sanity” through the Local Government Act of 1871, Public Health Act 1872 and Public Health Act 1875. The Boards of Guardians and Clerk of Guardians were also granted guardianship over minors through the Guardianship of Infants Acts 1886 and 1925.
Significantly, from 1879 with the Summary Jurisdiction Act (1879), the Clerk of the Peace, also known as the Clerk of the Guardians, also known as the Clerk of the Magistrates, also known as the Registrar of the Court of Record was granted the powers of the Clerk of the Privy Council as their agent for summary judgment matters. Thus when the Clerk of the Magistrates or their agent such as a Justices’ Clerk issued a summons or warrant under Crown seal, the matter could be handled as a summary judgment simply by evoking these extraordinary powers over all subjects, regardless of whether they were poor, insane or a minor.
In 1929 in the United Kingdom with the Local Government Act (1929), the Boards of Guardians as well as the position of Clerk of Guardians were finally “abolished” by allocating their powers to a different office:
(i) Board of Guardians became Council of a County or Borough; and
(ii) Clerk to the Guardians became Clerk of the County Council or Town Clerk; and
(iii) Guardian as an individual became a member of the Council of a County or Borough; and
(iv) Poor Law Union became a County or Borough.
In most western countries following Roman Cult law and English law, the Town Clerk remains effectively the “Clerk of the Guardians”, the “Clerk of the Peace”, the “Agent of the Clerk of the Privy Council”, the “Clerk of the Magistrates” and “Registrar of the Court of Record” with the Justices’ Clerks of Magistrates Courts their agent possessing the claimed power to conclude summary judgments.
Based on the continued claimed powers of the Clerk and their agents, a Magistrates Court is effectively a Court of Wards and Guardians with a hearing effectively either "examination" or a "summary judgment" for petty matters limited by cost and penalty.
Upon the presumptions of power claimed by the Clerks, when one attends a Roman law Magistrates Court, it is presumed one has consented to being treated as a Ward unless such presumptions are rejected before attendance or immediately upon being brought forcibly before the Magistrates Court.
The origin of the word Magistrate
The word Magistrate originates from the Latin magistratus meaning literally “magistrate”. In Roman Law, a magistrate was considered a senior judicial rank and the magister (meaning “chief or director”) was one of the highest administrative positions of power. However, by the 4th Century CE and the formation of the Holly Roman Empire of British born Emperor Constantine, the title of the magistrate was abolished.
The return of the title of Magistrate in Roman Law
In 1327, King Edward III of England created through the Justices of the Peace Act (1327) a new voluntary role called a “Justice of the Peace” designed to hear and resolve local disputes throughout the various parishes. There was no income from such service and the role was largely filled as an added title by existing respected local leaders.
The role was further amended in acts in 1344 and 1361. The Justices of the Peace Act 1361 is still in force in England. It gave the Justices of the Peace the Power to “restrain the Offenders, Rioters, and all other Barators, and to pursue, arrest, take and chastise them according their Trespass or Offence; and to cause them to be imprisoned and duly punished according to the Law and Customs of the Realm…”.
However, by the 19th Century, the role of the unpaid Justice of the Peace had become intolerable and in 1839 a new professionally paid role was created called “Magistrate” to assist with the creation of the Policy (spelt Police) Officers designed to uphold the corporate policies of corporate estates now controlling boroughs and nations through the Metropolitan Police Act 1839, Metropolitan Police Courts Act 1839. Thus, the Justices of the Peace as a Magistrate of a Policy (Policy) Court could gain an income in assisting with the validation of fines and other revenue acts initiated by the Policy (spelt police) Officers.
Thus a modern Roman Magistrate is intimately linked to the Policy (police) Forces of corporate entities for raising revenue, enacting seizures of goods and people under letters of marquee called “warrants”.
Magistrates Court
A Magistrates Court typically possesses both civil and criminal jurisdiction to hear cases, but limited according to the severity of charges, the penalties that may be issued or the amount of claimed compensation.
The corruption of the role of Accusator
In ancient Rome, the one who brought the controversy or "accusation" was called the Accusator, not "prosecutor". The word Accusator comes from the Latin accusator meaning "the one who accuses" and was the formal title given to the party who first brought the accusations of a controversy before a competent Forum. Prosecutor is a 16th Century term created for Roman Courts and comes from two Latin terms being Pro Se meaning “for one’s own behalf” and cutis “skin (flesh)”. Hence Pro+Se+Cutis literally means “on behalf of one's own skin” or a Beneficiary De Son Tort or simply the “false beneficiary”. The Roman Cult and the private law guilds corrupted the role of the Accusator and replaced it with the role of the "Prosecutor" in the 16th Century to both comply with the principles of the Sacrament of Penance upon which all Roman Suits are based and secondly to comply with trust law.
Under Trust law it is the beneficiary that brings the complaint to the Executor, not a Trustee or non-related party. Furthermore, by presuming the role of the accused in making the accusation, the Prosecutor perfects the "prayer of confession" consistent with the Roman Cult sacrament of Penance.
The strange and twisted role of the Prosecutor
Prior to the perfection of the plea- the moment that the accused formally appoints the judge as executor, the prosecutor has no formal role within the constructive trust of the court case. Instead, the prosecutor is merely invoking their position as claiming to represent the flesh, or competency of the accused in order to make the accusation valid as the claimed "beneficiary". In other words, the lead attorney of any criminal court matter before the court is the prosecutor first and any defense attorney second. When one perfects their revocation of power of attorney or Pronouncement of Restitution followed by the Executor letter, then the accused is clearly revoking any right for the prosecutor to claim to represent them in making the accusation.
Once a man or woman who is accused competently asserts their position as both Executor and Beneficiary of any trust created in their legal name that claims control over their mind, flesh, soul and behaviour, the Prosecutor becomes a Beneficiary De Son Tort and must immediately withdraw from the Court and the matter be dismissed with extreme prejudice.
As the purpose of the role of the Prosecutor is founded on trickery and corruption of the law to usurp the position of the accused, the use of the word Prosecutor is forbidden in any Ucadian Court.
The origin of Sheriff
The word Sheriff is an adaption of an ancient title for the first peace officers of shires (from ancient Gaelic sire, an administrative division created in the 3rd Century CE) called sire áirithe meaning "worthy man of the shire (sire)". By the 10th Century, the words sire áirithe were blended to siráirithe and scīrġerēfa to become sheriff by the 13th and 14th Century.
Under the laws created by the great Holly King Cormac mac Art at the start of the 3rd Century CE, the áirithe of the sire (shire) was responsible for the protection and custody of all property of the sire (shire), while the individual baillidh (bailiff) of each town (bail) was responsible for the people and land around the town.
While the laws of Tara and the Holly were inclosed by the Khazar/Magyar and their mercenary forces in subsequent centuries, the role of sheriff was retained because of its origin as the first and highest law of the land from the beginning of the first sophisticated land titles system under Holly Law.
However, since the massive changes usurping the sovereingty of most nations in favor of the international banking system from the 1930's , the role of the Sheriff has been largely reduced while the promotion of private militia in the form of "policy" or police forces have taken over.
In some locations, the role of the sheriff has become largely ceremonial, merely retaining the notional law of the land, while almost all effective "peace" duties are handled by policy (police) agents.
Origin of the word Executor
The word Executor comes from the Latin exsecutor meaning “one who speaks for himself, is his (their) own commander and manager".
The Latin word itself is derived from three primary Latin words ex meaning "by reason of, through or in accordance with", se meaning "himself, herself or themselves" and cutis meaning "skin (flesh)".
By definition, an Executor is appointed by the creator of a Trust.
There are only four valid methods by which an Executor is appointed being By the Grantor, By the Testator, By the Deed or By the Tenor: (i) By the Grantor is when an Executor is appointed by the Grantor of a Trust; or (ii) By the Testator is when an Executor is appointed by direct naming by the Testator of a Will to manage and administer the decedents' estates in executing the will of a Testamentary Trust; or (iiii) By the Deed is when an Executor is appointed in accordance with the terms of a Deed of Trust such as granting the power of appointment to one or more beneficiaries of a society possessing a valid system of law and elections; or (iv) By the Tenor ("to the tenor") and traditionally called is when an Executor is appointed in absence of clear instruction by Deed, Grantor or Testator based on one or presumptions that if found to be false immediately dissolve any presumed powers.
Types of Executor roles
There are six (6) main types of Executors based on the legitimacy of their Authority and the manner of their appointment: (i) Exsecutor Generalis, also known as "General Executor" is the highest form of Executor having complete Authority and Dominion over the Trust and its Assets. There can only be one General Executor for a Trust; and (ii) Exsecutor Ab Episcopo Constitutus, also known as an "Executor Dative" is an Executor appointed by ecclesiastical authority to administer the estate of a deceased who did not leave a will (died intestate) ; or (iii) Executor Testamentarius, also known as a "Testamentary Executor" is an executor appointed by a Testator; or (iv) Executor Nominatum , also simply known as a "Executor" is an executor appointed by a Grantor, Testator or through terms of the Deed; or (v) Exsecutor Lucratus, also known as an "Executor" is an Executor that possesses the assets of the Testator by law, based on one or more presumptions on account of some undischarged debts that do not permit the assets to be released to a named Executor/Beneficiary; or (vi) Exsecutor De Son Tort, also known as an "Illegitimate Executor" is a person who acts like an executor even though s/he has no authority to do so.
Origin and nature of Agent and Agency
The word "agent" is derived from the Latin agentis meaning "effective". While the word is claimed to be in use by the 16th Century, there is no credible evidence the term was used in law until as late as 1730 and the introduction of the Landlord and Tenant Act in 1730, which stated: "In case any Tenant or Tenants for any Term of Life, Lives or Years, or other Person or Persons, who are or shall come into Possession of any Lands, Tenements or Hereditaments, by, from or under, or by Collusion with such Tenant or Tenants, shall wilfully hold over any Lands, Tenements or Hereditaments, after the Determination of such Term or Terms, and after Demand made, and Notice in Writing given, for delivering the Possession thereof, by his or their Landlords or Lessors, or the Person or Persons to whom the Remainder or Reversion of such Lands, Tenements or Hereditaments shall belong, his or their Agent or Agents thereunto lawfully authorized; then and in such Case such Person or Persons so holding over, shall, for and during the Time he, she and they shall so hold over, or keep the Person or Persons intitled, out of Possession of the said Lands, Tenements, and Hereditaments, as aforesaid, pay to the Person or Persons so kept out of Possession, their Executors, Administrators or Assigns, at the Rate of double the yearly Value of the Lands, Tenements and Hereditaments so detained, for so long time as the same are detained, to be recovered in any of his Majesty’s Courts of Record, by Action of Debt." (still in force in UK)
The term was again used in the Distress for Rent Act 1737 and then Constables Protection Act 1750. However, it was after 1816 that the term Agent began to be frequently used in legislation within the United Kingdom and the rest of the world.
As to the claim that Agent is found in common law through the alleged Latin maxim qui facit per alium, facit per se meaning "one who acts through another, acts in his or her own interests", there is absolutely no credible evidence that Agent and indeed Agency Law existed as a bona fide section of commercial law until the late 19th Century and early 20th Century.
Agent, Agency Law and Contract Law
The concept of Agent as it is known today is intimately linked to the late 19th Century and 20th Century development of uniform contract law through statute and the notion of agency law, or the formalised relationship between an agent and principal.
The most notable statute for defining the relation between Agent, their Agency under Contract was the Indian Contract Act 1872 which introduced a disturbing and deliberate corruption into the law concerning presumption and ignorance whilst providing clear definition to the relationships, limits and concepts concerning an agent, contractual agreement and their authority.
Contrary to the presumed meaning of "Indian" as an inhabitant of India, the word in its legal and historical use meant "a general name of any native of the Indies (West or East) as per Papal Bull Inter caetera by Pope Alexander VI on May 4, 1493, which granted to Spain all lands to the "west and south" of a meridian 100 leagues (418 km) west of the Azores and the Cape Verde Islands, at 36°8'W and Portugal to the east.
Under such acts of law, the authority of an agent was defined as either expressed or implied, without necessarily requiring a written contract or warrant.
Where no written contract or warrant exists demonstrating the authority of the Agent, a definable act of recognition or acquiescence must have occurred.
The role of agent and Private Bar Guild
The modern Roman Court system administered by the Private Bar Guild uses the concepts of Agent, Agency and Contract to presume an agreement and agent relationship is agreed by all parties before it.
This is done primarily through presumption and the explicit use of key words that imply the appointment of an agent relationship such as "understand", "recognize", "comprehend".
Removal of presumptions of Agent
In accordance with statute and practice, any express or implied authority granted to an Agent or presumed by an agent may be removed by the vocal rejection of such presumptions of written indication.
The most common and formal means for removing any presumed agent relationship is to state clearly that the person "does not recognize" the other claiming an agent relationship.
In such circumstances, the effect of stating clearly that one "does not recognize" the judge, magistrate, prosecutor or attorney claiming an agent position is to make clear that no authority is granted to such a person and that any authority claimed by them must therefore be explicit, in writing and demonstratable from another source.
If all such presumptions of contract and agreement are rejected, then members of the Private Bar Guild is left with the only option but to pursue force, without the protection or validity of law.
The Primary Law that Governs all Court Cases
Whether you realize it or not, whether a judge, prosecutor, attorney or any law official admits it or not, the central law that governs the administrative procedure of all Western law court cases is BOOK IV FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 834 - 848) >http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3E.HTM PART I. THE SACRAMENTS > TITLE IV. THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE
The Roman Catholic Church defines the administrative
procedure of "Penance" thus: "it (penance) comprises the actions of the penitent in presenting himself to the priest and accusing himself of his sins, and the actions of the priest in pronouncing absolution and imposing satisfaction. This whole procedure is usually called, from one of its parts, "confession", and it is said to take place in the "tribunal of penance", because it is a judicial process in which the penitent is at once the accuser, the person accused, and the witness, while the priest pronounces judgment and sentence. The grace conferred is deliverance from the guilt of sin and, in the case of mortal sin, from its eternal punishment; hence also reconciliation with God, justification. Finally, the confession is made not in the secrecy of the penitent's heart nor to a layman as friend and advocate, nor to a representative of human authority, but to a duly ordained priest with requisite jurisdiction and with the "power of the keys", i.e., the power to forgive sins which Christ granted to His Church."
Source: Catholic Encylopedia "Sacrament of Penance While there are obviously striking similarities between the Sacrament of Penance and a modern court case involving the "accused", the seeking of a confession, the judgment and sentence, some may find it difficult to believe how the Sacrament of Penance truly is the foundation for all court cases when we (the accused) do not self-accuse - as the prosecutor does this - nor do we willingly confess our sins.
This is why trust law and the concept of honor and competence is so important. Indeed, when a criminal case is brought against you, it may appear you do not self-accuse until you realize what the word "prosecutor" means in Latin PRO SE CUTIS or "Representing one's own flesh" - a person who is claiming to be you in making the "self-accusation".
Indeed, the concept of a "Plea" is a request by you to the judge, appointing the judge as executor to hear your confession.
Are you getting to see the picture now that the whole process of a court case is really the administration of the Sacrament of Penance? Let us then look at the origin of the concept of penance and why the sacrament is so important for the courts, the private bar guild and the Roman Cult.
The concept of Penance and Punishment
When the Frankish knights re-established law and order throughout Europe from the 8th Century onwards, they heavily promoted a strong Gnostic approach to Christianity blended with military like discipline. One of the key concepts was called “penitus” meaning “honest self examination, to look inside deeply, thoroughly” and is the origin of the concept of the sacred self-confession. The twin concept of self examination at ones faults or was then “purgo/purgare” meaning to “cleanse, purge, clear away, to purify” by acts of deep prayer and meditation, self deprivation, humility, charity.
The Frankish system did not encourage the kind of sadism and extremism under the Roman Cult later seen when Roman feudalism swept Europe from the 13th century, wiping out most people practicing the original notions of penitus/purgare – especially the revered Cathars of Southern France.
In its place was introduced a corrupted, perverse and wicked theology based on the notion that an entire temporal existence was one of perpetual penance (from the 13th C Latin poenitentia itself from the Latin phrase poen(a)+it(a)+en+tia(e) meaning “The tiara (Roman Pontiff) thus now controls punishment”) controlled by the Roman Pontiff.
Thus penance no longer became an action of self learning, knowledge and honesty, but pain, punishment and subjugation.
Similarly, purgo/purgare was wholly corrupted from the enlightened ritual of “cleanse, purge, clear away, to purify by acts of deep prayer and meditation, self deprivation, humility, charity” to purgatory from purgo+tormentum meaning “cleaning, purging, purification through torment and torture” – a sick and twisted notion that survives to this day.
Thus, the world today is a very different place thanks to the perverse notions introduced by the Roman Cult when they consolidated their power and takeover of the Catholic Church in the 13th century whereby they continue to justify their actions as “acts of goodness, love and purification through our torture” and that our lives should be perpetual pain, servitude, punishment, subjugation as “penance”.
At the same time, the Venetian controlled Roman Cult invented an “off-set” from this world of pain and punishment for our “sins” in the doctrine and belief of the existence of the Treasury of One True Heaven, which is the next piece of the puzzle with indulgences
The Catholic Doctrine Acknowledging the existence of the Treasury of One True Heaven Canon 992 of the Roman Cult is one of several canons that by implication recognizes the existence of the Treasury of One Heaven and therefore Pactum De Singularis Caelum being the Covenant of One Heaven.
When the idea was first invented at the start of the 13th Century, the Roman Cult and their Venetian allies conceived the idea that in “Heaven” a double entry book keeping transaction took place every time we sinned here on Earth whereby “God” in his infinite grace would offset our sin- being debt- with credits drawn from the Treasury of (One) Heaven. This purely spiritual accounting procedure, strangely mimicking Venetian accounting law, was said to occur automatically without any request for intercession.
According to Roman Cult theology, the source of the credits in the Treasury of (One) Heaven is the blood sacrificed or spilt by the saints and Jesus Christ in the name of the Divine Creator, thus reinforcing the ancient laws of Leviticus and the ancient laws of the Cult of Mithra that blood was the highest form of currency of the “gods”- from which we get the literal phrase of “blood payment” off-setting any sin – and explanation of the strange line of the Roman Cult canon “of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints.”
These concepts of the Treasury of (One)Heaven, blood as the highest source of currency and the automatic double entry Venetian book keeping by “god” are fundamental and foundational concepts to indulgences. They set the framework to justify the role and purpose of indulgences.
Indulgences as the “credit” event against sin (debt) in the temporal world
While the Roman Cult claims God in his infinite grace draws down from the credits in the Treasury of (One) Heaven to offset our sins (debt) in Heaven, there is no comparable event on Earth without the concept of the “Indulgence” invented by the Roman Cult and their Venetian allies.
Indulgences are therefore both the ritual that creates the partial or total credit as well as the documentary evidence and title of the event, often called a remit, or “remittance” from Latin re= “property” and mitto/misi = “send, dispatch, transmit, emit, pronounce”.
Therefore when the Roman Cult Canon 992 states an “indulgence is the remission before God of temporal punishment for sins”, remission/remit are the same thing being the commoditization of both sin (debt) and the forgiveness of sin (credit) in a documentary form of means of exchange. Memorialized Indulgences may also be known by other comparable names such as coupon, bill, note, notice, writ, cheque, receipt, certificate, award, diploma and degree.
Not only did the Roman Cult gain huge sums through "donations" for the issuance of Indulgences to balance the sins of kings and nobles, but Indulgences themselves introduced for the first time a paper form of currency considered universally stable and holding its own value as a means of exchange.
The means by which this concept was possible was the fact that the origin of Trust law whereby a grantor (penitant) grants something to a third party (confessor) that can then be used by a third party (beneficiary) - being the memorialization of the ritual. In other words, the people performed the sins, the people performed the penance and punishment, but their lords and kings got to keep the memorialized "paper" of their forgiveness for their sins.
This is precisely the same system in place today whereby members of western "democracies" work for most of their life under penance and often great suffering, while their "lords" are granted by the Roman Cult to keep the benefits of the indulgences in the form of currency gained from of the "sweat and pain" of the people.
Indulgences today
In terms of the ritual of indulgence, all indulgences are considered part of the “sacrament of Penance” involving essentially a five part process. The first being the plea/prayer, the second being the confession, the third being the absolution or sentence, the fourth being the penance or punishment and the optional fifth being documentary proof and title to the ritual performed.
Similar to the original creation of Indulgences, Roman Cult tightly control their issuance under Canon 995 §1, "only those to whom this power is acknowledged in the law or granted by the Roman Pontiff can bestow indulgences" . Furthermore, 995 §2. "No authority below the Roman Pontiff can entrust the power of granting indulgences to others unless the Apostolic See has given this expressly to the person."
The way indulgences are handled today is that a very small and ancient guild of notaries, mostly Jesuit trained or controlled called the Scrivener Notaries (founded back in the 14th Century in London) create "original" indulgences. Extracts are then created from the original permitting (extract means salvage) fees for salvage and usury to be charged. These extracts are also commonly known as derivatives.
Importantly, the documentation of an indulgence does not have to be perfected at the end of the ritual, but in the case of all modern court cases in western law may open at the start of the case with a writ and complete when the judge has signed the sentence and the penance or punishment is accepted by the penitent.
The same is the case with registering at the earliest opportunity pregnancies through Catholic hospitals backdated to the likely time of conception and the indulgence of “Magnificat”. The Magnificat Indulgence is then completed when the parents “give” the new born baby away by signing the birth record and a drop of the babies blood is sealed onto the birth record.
In fact almost major life events recorded and documented by western governments against their citizens have associated indulgences associated with any documentation produced such as:
In articulo mortis - At the Approach of Death
Obiectorum pietatis usus - Use of sacred objects
Prima Communio - First Communion
Visitatio pastoralis - Attendance to a church or oratory (court) where there is a visiting ordinary
Requiem aeternam- Prayer for the Dead
Over the centuries, the Roman Cult has produced a huge number of variations on indulgences, with absolute incontrovertible proof that indulgences were also issued for sins not yet committed as the first insurance contracts. Many of the rituals associated with insurance contracts still used today such as those generated by the founders of insurance in London are carefully guarded and hidden.
However, the role of the Scrivener Notaries and the fact that all valid negotiable instruments used today are not only financial instruments but are indulgences is hidden in plain sight. Scrivener comes from Latin Scribo (Scribe) and Venae (Indulgence). The handful of special notaries located in all major financial centres of the world are literally called "scribes of indulgences" in plain sight.
Implication of Indulgences and the Ecclesiatical Deeds
Consistent with 995 §1 of Roman Canon Law, the true Canon Laws of Astrum Iuris Divini Canonum and the Covenant Pactum De Singularis Caelum recognize the authority and power of authorized officers of the society to issue indulgences equal and greater in authority than the Roman Cult.
Furthermore, should the Roman Cult or any agent of any western society dishonor any instrument issued by the Treasury of One Heaven, then such a dishonor is the highest disgrace against the entire present global financial system of the western world.
Therefore, whenever an Ecclesiastical deed is issued or any instrument issued by the Treasury of One heaven in future, it should be accompanied with a Notice of Facts and Interrogatories at least to ensure any intended official is aware of the history.
Origin of the word and concept of Hearing
The word hearing comes from the word “hear” a 17th Century word combination two ancient Latin phrases in popular use being heia (pronounced “here”) meaning “come on!, come now (to this place)!” and heres (also pronounced “here”) meaning “heir, heiress or successor”. Hence the literal original meaning of hearing is a "calling of successors to a place".
Guardian Hearing
The concept of Guardian and Pauper coincide with the creation of the concept of Settlement in the late 16th and early 17th Century and the reintroduction of an obligation of “charity” to distinguish Venetian/English Common Law slavery from absolute Venetian/Roman Feudal Law barbarism. People were no longer considered animals but “poor” or paupers while the Lord and Church was no longer able to kill, rape and murder with impunity but was obliged to provide alms and sustenance to the poor of their parish. Under such a model, when one admitted to being a pauper, a single administrative official assuming the role of Clerk of Guardians could presume to render summary judgment without the requirement of a tribunal of magistrates.
The concept of Guardian and Ward as a "resident" of a hospital for lunatics and the insane is derived from the late 19th Century in the creation of Local Government Areas and "hospital" wards in the introduction of new International Private Law. Under this model, a second form of hearings emerged as quasi-medical examinations administered by a "Clerk of Guardians" assisted by a magistrate to determine whether the accused had a case to answer to a higher court, or not.
Origin of the word Trial
The word Trial comes from the ancient Gaelic word trial meaning "travel, make one's way or journey". The claim that it is derived from the French word "trier" is completely false. However its timing to being applied to Roman Court is not until the 16th Century.
The term Trial and its meaning to mean "appearance at judicial court to test the truth of accusations" was first invented at the Jesuit College of English in the late 16th Century along with approximately 2,000 new legal terms then delivered through the guise of the Shakespeare portfolio as part of the introduction of the world’s first Mind Influence System that eventually replaced physical slavery with (voluntary) slavery of the mind. It appears the word shared a similar occult significance as "tri" by this time was synonymous with three and -al is a common suffix meaning "of or pertaining to" which may be an ancient reference to the Latin form of trial probatio and the opportunity for the accused to speak three times at prolocution, collocution and adlocution.
The right to a fair trial
No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which they have already been tried and a final lawfully valid verdict has already been brought, unless medical forensic evidence of a verifiable nature is presented as grounds for a new trial.
In principle, justice demands that all trials be in public- that is, are open to the scrutiny of the public, accountable to the public and not held in secret. In this regard, it remains a right of the public to know which men, women or persons, under what charges and at which Court(s) such matters will be heard.
Fairness of Verdict
Everyone charged with a criminal offence will be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a lawfully valid verdict. The verdict is the finding of the jury on the questions of fact submitted to it.
The Etymology of the word Sentence
The word sentence from the 16th Century Latin word sentential meaning “doctrine, authoritative teaching. judgment or expression of will”. The word itself is derived from two earlier Latin words sentio meaning “to judge with, to feel, experience or undergo” and ensis meaning “the sword”. Hence the true original etymology of sentence as created in the 16th Century was “to judge with the sword; to feel, experience or undergo the sword” – hence the image of the courts and justice system represented not only by the scales of the Egyptian god Thoth, the judge of the dead , but the symbol of the sword.
Sentence as a Judgment
While several definitions exist in the modern interpretation of Sentence in civil and criminal Law such as “unconditional demand” and “judicial decree”, the most commonly accepted interpretation of the function of a sentence in both modern civil and criminal law is “a judgment formally pronounced at the conclusion of a legal proceeding pertaining to the enforcement of one or more statutes of law”.
Similar to Sentence, the word Judgment also appears in the 16th Century as one of over 2,500 words first invented at the Jesuit College of English in Rome and later claimed as the work of Shakespeare in introducing a completely new legal framework. The word Judgment is derived from two Latin words iug(o) meaning “to bind together, connect, couple (together)” and ment(is) meaning “Mind”. Hence the true original meaning of the word Judgment is “to bind together the mind and person”. It is why a Sentence rightly can only ever be seen as an offer- albeit emphatically stated.
Indeed, the word demand comes from the same 16th Century Latin and English word creation as demandare meaning “to request, to entrust or charge with a commission as trustee”. Therefore, even if a Sentence is regarded as a “demand”, it still dependents on the consent of the one who is being “sentenced” and hence can only be seen as an offer.
A Sentence is an Offer not an Order
Before anyone finds themselves in a court whereby they could face a judge as an administrator, or a tribunal of judges or magistrates issuing a criminal sentence, there is something you must know- a Sentence is an Offer, not an Order.
As the above definitions demonstrate, the word sentence, judgment and demand all point in their true etymological origins to a sentence being an offer, but the question is why? If a person is convicted of a criminal offence, how could a sentence in anyway be regarded as an offer in the same manner as someone haggling to purchase some good as a street stall? The answer is simply the legal event cannot be compared this way, except for the element of consent.
In other words, you have the right to immediately decline the offer before the judge bangs down their gavel or magistrates leaves to indicate the Offer has been agreed, by silence, acknowledgment and the passage of a few moments of time.
Technically the judge cannot bang down their gavel until they have given their sentence as an offer. If they do bang down their gavel before completing the offer of the sentence, then they have fundamentally broken a primary rule of their job and you can instantly object with the proviso that you will appeal such a corruption of law.
In any criminal matter pertaining to a “penal sum”, the implication is that any bonds are formed under the rules of trusts, estates and probate law that run in disguise throughout the fabric of the case.
However, a bond is imperfect if the surety does not consent to performance. Therefore, a sentence entailing some financial bond requires that the convicted consent to performance, otherwise strictly speaking such bonds are defective.
If you do so, the judge or magistrate is not permitted to continue as you have not consented to the sentence, therefore you cannot be considered the holder of the liability, even if the jury has found you guilty in fact. This is a fundamental Achilles heel of the corrupt law of the Bar Guild and provides an opportunity for any man or woman to negotiate a fairer sentence, whilst remaining in honor with the law.
This may sound preposterous to some, especially those who may work within the legal profession and who are not fully aware of the bonding process that operates throughout the courts. However, it is perfectly known that any performance bonds created at the end of a case, need the consent of the convicted who may then go to prison to “perform”.
On a deeper ecclesiastical level, all court proceedings by definition are considered the sacrament of penance whereby the accused not only “confesses” but “consents” to the punishment as part of absolution. Again, this may seem absurd to those within the legal profession who have never properly read Blackstones Commentaries to see the underlying fabric of Roman Canon Law throughout Common Law since the 18th Century, nor bothered to read Roman Canon Law from 1983 and its global application.
But first, how is this possible? And why if it is true that more people don’t know about it? If it is true why would the Bar deny it is true and get away with it? And why is it true? Lets start with the continued question of general ignorance of the law by most members of the Bar.
Just because a person has trained as an attorney for years and is a loyal member of a Bar Guild does not mean they have any idea about the rules of the Bar, let alone the law in general. As is stated in Canon 1669 “The inferior Roman legal system is deliberately complex with volumes of texts in order to deliberately conceal, confuse and ensure knowledge of the law is excluded for all but a very few.” In other words, the first people to whom the Roman legal system lie are the lawyers, then the people.
It is why the modern legal system is so massively overwritten- over 60 million laws within the United States, compared to a few hundred maxims of the 12 Tablets of Roman Law that stood in the forum for 1,000 years as the basis of the law of the Roman Empire.
Most members of the legal professional are good people and often highly intelligent. So in order to confuse them, to entrap them into a mod of behaviour for which they probably swore they would never follow, the law must be presented as overly complex and confusing.
It means, one cannot possibly rely on even a law professor to provide credible rebuttal nor confirmation of the statement of claim concerning sentencing. Only the history and reasoning behind it- and anecdotal examples provide any “evidence” of the truth.
What is happening at sentencing?
To provide some rational and logical evidence to the truth of the claim that a Sentence is only an offer, not an order before the judge seals it through the use of the gavel, let us review what we know about the Bar Guild and the Court in financially sealing sentence and liability.
When a controversy is first brought to court, such as a criminal matter, the liability is held by the prosecutor until the liability can be attached to the defendant. In terms of the Court, this liability has a financial sum and once perfected will produce a bond of some financial value that will later be sold like any other bond on the bond market. The sale of bonds of people in prison is now well known and proven as fact with the issue of CUSIP numbers for such bonds and their trade in major markets.
So how does the prosecutor get the liability across to the defendant? Well, simply by getting the defendant to accept the liability as surety after they have accepted the “benefit” of the associated penalty, such as prison. In other words, there are two distinct items the defendant must consent of their own free will (1) the penalty listed in the judgment of the judge/magistrate as a “benefit” and (2) the surety of performance in the form of the sentence.
The court cannot force these onto the defendant, even if a jury has found them through a verdict guilty. Nor can a judge even impose it unilaterally upon a defendant who has already pleaded guilty through some “plea bargain”. Instead it must be the man or woman who makes their consent known for it to be legal. If it is not legal, then the value of the penalty is worthless and the court cannot lawfully process the bond, nor sell it.
Now in a jurisdiction where they are not seeking to make money from crime, a judge may ignore such procedures, particularly in communist and totalitarian regimes. But we are not speaking about such systems of law. In fact, even in the worst of regimes, an absence of consent by the prisoner to the sentence makes the sentence unlawful.
Sentences, Persons and the Will of the Person There was an additional meaning ascribed to a “sentence” being the expression of the will of the person which deserves special attention- particularly in explaining why in some courts that a judge or magistrate may choose to ignore the non-consent of the man or woman to the sentence and still send them to prison.
Courts deal with persons and the connection of men and women as surety to these legal fictions. Sadly, the recognition that all persons, including the absurd notion of “natural persons” somehow being a law of nature is lost on many in the legal profession.
As Blackstone expressed within his Commentaries, a “person” is borne from the belly of a statute – thus paper. Similarly, the property of persons as copyhold and copyright are also fictions implemented (despite deliberately false historical references) no earlier than the end of the 17th Century. This leaves the “mind” of the person as a fiction to also be written- or the expression of will.
Unless the court recognizes the person has expressed their will through the proper recording of the will and testament, or some other means of forcing it to be recognized, then the court as a probate court possesses the power to determine the “will of the person”. Thus, if the sentence states the person is to go to prison for ten years, then in the absence of any other recorded will and testament, this becomes a codicil (addition) to the will of the person and any surety (man or woman) automatically will be shipped of to prison, whether or not they protest.
The question of whether magistrates, judges or even lawyers appreciate this function of the court, of will and sentencing in this way, is debatable. However, it is the sharp end of sentencing when a man or woman does choose to object and not consent that a judge may still ignore an absence of consent and proceed- with the removal of all penal sums.
The fact that some judges and magistrates still sign off on penal sums and bonds after sentencing and clear non-consent of the convicted is blatant fraud- which may only be finally stamped by the exposure of the true function and reason of this core element of Roman Court Procedure.
Regardless of those in the legal profession who have neither the inclination nor the ability to fully appreciate the deep and occult nature of Roman Law and its function, all competent men and women have the absolute right to decline the offer of sentence and make clear – (1) it is the expression of the will of the person to decline the offer and (2) no penal sum nor bond may remain against the case as no consent to perform has been given. A judge or magistrate than then proceeds and imprisons the man or woman, is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and should be immediately removed and such action reversed.
The question of justice and fairness
There is nothing fair or just that people who are guilty of terrible crimes against society and decency should go unpunished or free, based on some technicalities. Indeed, if one is guilty of the crimes for which they are accused, then as a matter of principle they should at least be held account.
Yet the perverse design and underbelly of the Roman System is also based on making money through bonds, securities and other instruments from court cases, which require the tacit or explicit “consent” of the convicted.
If sentencing were not an offer but a proper decree, then no one convicted of a crime would have the ability or right to decline the judgment of the judge or magistrate.
The problem is not a question of promoting anti-social or anarchistic behaviour- it is holding the system to account for its deliberate and corrupt flaws- knowing that putting people in prison to make money is a perversion of civilized society.
Key Presumptions
(i) The Presumption of Public Record is that any matter brought before a lower Roman Court is a matter for the public record when in fact it is presumed by the members of the private Bar Guild that the matter is a private Bar Guild business matter. Unless openly rebuked and rejected by stating clearly the matter is to be on the Public Record, the matter remains a private Bar Guild matter completely under private Bar Guild rules; and (ii) The Presumption of Public Service is that all the members of the Private Bar Guild who have all sworn a solemn secret absolute oath to their Guild then act as public agents of the Government, or “public officials” by making additional oaths of public office that openly and deliberately contradict their private "superior" oaths to their own Guild. Unless openly rebuked and rejected, the claim stands that these private Bar Guild members are legitimate public servants and therefore trustees under public oath; and (iii) The Presumption of Public Oath is that all members of the Private Bar Guild acting in the capacity of "public officials" who have sworn a solemn public oath remain bound by that oath and therefore bound to serve honestly, impartialty and fairly as dictated by their oath. Unless openly challenged and demanded, the presumption stands that the Private Bar Guild members have functioned under their public oath in contradiction to their Guild oath. If challenged, such individuals must recuse themselves as having a conflict of interest and cannot possibly stand under a public oath; and (iv) The Presumption of Immunity is that key members of the Private Bar Guild in the capacity of "public officials" acting as judges, prosecutors and magistrates who have sworn a solemn public oath in good faith are immune from personal claims of injury and liability. Unless openly challenged and their oath demanded, the presumption stands that the members of the Private Bar Guild as public trustees acting as judges, prosecutors and magistrates are immune from any personal accountability for their actions; and (v) The Presumption of Summons is that by custom a summons unrebutted stands and therefore one who attends Court is presumed to accept a position (defendant, juror, witness) and jurisdiction of the court.
Attendance to court is usually invitation by summons. Unless the summons is rejected and returned, with a copy of the rejection filed prior to choosing to visit or attend, jurisdiction and position as the accused and the existence of "guilt" stands; and (vi) The Presumption of Custody is that by custom a summons or warrant for arrest unrebutted stands and therefore one who attends Court is presumed to be a thing and therefore liable to be detained in custody by "Custodians". Custodians may only lawfully hold custody of property and "things" not flesh and blood soul possessing beings.
Unless this presumption is openly challenged by rejection of summons and/or at court, the presumption stands you are a thing and property and therefore lawfully able to be kept in custody by custodians; and (vii) The Presumption of Court of Guardians is the presumption that as you may be listed as a "resident" of a ward of a local government area and have listed on your "passport" the letter P, you are a pauper and therefore under the "Guardian" powers of the government and its agents as a "Court of Guardians". Unless this presumption is openly challenged to demonstrate you are both a general guardian and general executor of the matter (trust) before the court, the presumption stands and you are by default a pauper, and lunatic and therefore must obey the rules of the clerk of guardians (clerk of magistrates court); and (viii) The Presumption of Court of Trustees is that members of the Private Bar Guild presume you accept the office of trustee as a "public servant" and "government employee" just by attending a Roman Court, as such Courts are always for public trustees by the rules of the Guild and the Roman System. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to state you are merely visiting by "invitation" to clear up the matter and you are not a government employee or public trustee in this instance, the presumption stands and is assumed as one of the most significant reasons to claim jurisdiction - simply because you "appeared"; and (ix) The Presumption of Government acting in two roles as Executor and Beneficiary is that for the matter at hand, the Private Bar Guild appoint the judge/magistrate in the capacity of Executor while the Prosecutor acts in the capacity of Beneficiary of the trust for the current matter. If the accused does seek to assert their right as Executor and Beneficiary over their body, mind and soul they are acting as an Executor De Son Tort or a "false executor" challenging the "rightful" judge as Executor. Therefore, the judge/magistrate assumes the role of "true" executor and has the right to have you arrested, detained, fined or forced into a psychiatric evaluation. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to demonstrate you are both the true general guardian and general executor of the matter (trust) before the court, questioning and challenging whether the judge or magistrate is seeking to act as Executor De Son Tort, the presumption stands and you are by default the trustee, therefore must obey the rules of the executor (judge/magistrate) or you are an Executor De Son Tort and a judge or magistrate of the private Bar guild may seek to assistance of bailiffs or sheriffs to assert their false claim against you; and (x) The Presumption of Agent and Agency is the presumption that under contract law you have expressed and granted authority to the Judge and Magistrate through the statement of such words as "recognize, understand" or "comprehend" and therefore agree to be bound to a contract. Therefore, unless all presumptions of agent appointment are rebutted through the use of such formal rejections as "I do not receognize you", to remove all implied or expressed appointment of the judge, prosecutor or clerk as agents, the presumption stands and you agree to be contractually bound to perform at the direction of the judge or magistrate; and (xi) The Presumption of Incompetence is the presumption that you are at least ignorant of the law, therefore incompetent to present yourself and argue properly. Therefore, the judge/magistrate as executor has the right to have you arrested, detained, fined or forced into a psychiatric evaluation. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to the fact that you know your position as executor and beneficiary and actively rebuke and object to any contrary presumptions, then it stands by the time of pleading that you are incompetent then the judge or magistrate can do what they need to keep you obedient; and (xii) The Presumption of Guilt is the presumption that as it is presumed to be a private business meeting of the Bar Guild, you are guilty whether you plead "guilty", do not plead or plead "not guilty". Therefore unless you either have previously prepared an affadavit of truth and motion to dismiss with extreme prejudice onto the public record or call a demurrer, then the presumption is you are guilty and the private Bar Guild can hold you until a bond is prepared to guarantee the amount the guild wants to profit from you.
Representing the Law
Whether or not Roman Courts are specifically designed to profit from corrupting the law, such institutions still possess some vestige of legal legitimacy in that they claim to stand for the law.
A member of Ucadia therefore that seeks to uphold the law and respect the law must therefore dress appropriately and behave accordingly with respect and honor in such circumstances - even when faced with malice and dishonor - as they are representing the law.
Therefore, it is not for the benefit or to acknowledge the legitimacy of Roman Courts that all who attend must dress in formal and neat attire as well as demonstrate the highest of manners, it is for the benefit of the law itself.
A Ucadian member must never be rude within a court. Even if a member of a Roman Court speaks over you, even if members of the private Bar Guild may demonstrate the most shocking and despicable disrespect to their own codes of conduct is no excuse.
When one behaves in an impolite, or rude manner; when one dresses without respect, then one cannot possible represent the law.
Ensure your objection is noted for appeal
When a judge or magistrate fraudulently uses an order of a psychiatric evalutation as a way of seeking to claim you are mentally incompetent as a way of avoiding answering key questions concerning the true operation of the law and the courts, ensure you remain calm, respectful but that your objection is noted on the record.
"With respect your honor, I object to this deliberate attempt to obstruct and pervert the course of justice and if any adverse finding is concluded I will be lodging an immediate appeal."
"Furthermore, if your honor issues such an order then any compliance on my part shall be under duress and threat and therefore any such alleged consent, oath, signature or information shall be null and void."
Remember, so long as you make it know that the court is forcing you to comply against your will and any such action shall be null and void, then the judge has a problem. Many times, the Bar members like to issue punitive notices in order to get a person not to comply. They then use the non-compliance against you.
But when you make it absolutely clear to them that they are forcing you to do things against your will and that you will do them against your will, under duress- it defeats the purpose of such game playing.
At any rate, here are some points to consider when one is forced to attent a psychiatric evaluation because a court has been cowardly and fraudulent in not answering fundamental points of law by which the case and the court functions.
The opportunity to ask the psychiatrist questions before you start
While the job of the court appointed psychiatrist is ultimately to discredit any of your claims as well as to declare you mentally incompetent, they are generally reasonable and professional people.
Therefore, they should agree to your opportunity of asking a couple of questions before the interview starts.
Furthermore, bring your own tape recorder. Do not bring it out, nor turn it on unless you are dealing with an unreasonable psychiatrist that does not permit you to ask a couple of questions before you start. In such a case, produce the tape recorder, place it on the desk and press record.
The psychiatrist in all likelihood will say to you you are not permitted to do this, or it is against the law. These points are complete rubbish. You have every right to record any interview, if the evidence may be used against you and if the interviewer refuses to give you a copy of the recording.
First question- Domain Competence
Here is the first key question to the psychiatrist: Are you an expert at Trust Law, Commercial Law and Positive Law? The psychiatrist may also have a law degree, so some might answer yes. So press them further to confirm they are an expert. Most will yield that even if they have studied it, they are not an expert.
So as you are not an expert at Trust Law, Commercial Law and Positive Law and therefore not competent to discuss such subjects in relation to the material presented in my case, I presume you will not be asking any questions or trying to make any kind of assessment on this information in your report? The psychiatrist may not answer for a moment, or may try to wriggle, because part of their job is to actually discredit your claims on trust law, positive law and commercial law using psychiatric spin. In the end, so long as you push the point respectfully, they can only do one thing and yield that they are not competent to interview you, nor make comments on such expert information.
Some smart psychiatrists may use an old trick to unbalance you, by putting the question back onto you such as "well are you an expert?" I do not need to be an expert at Trust Law, Commercial Law and Positive Law?, because I am not the one doing an assessment of competency- you are. So the question is whether you are an expert and therefore competent to make such assessments? In the end, even the smartest psychiatrist cannot overcome the logic.
Remember, if the psychiatrist simply displays threat or rudeness to honest and polite questions, pull out the tape recorder and start recording.
Second question- Mind Competence
Once you have confirmed that the psychiatrist has no expertise and competence to assess your material before the court in terms of its validity or otherwise regarding trust law, positive law and commercial law, it is time to ask a second and key question- the question of competence of mind.
As this a competency assessment, I presume the competency in question is mental competency, correct? 99% of psychiatrists will simply say yes.
And because you are a qualified psychiatrist, am I correct in presuming you are also qualified to make an assments on the competency of my mind and state of mind? Again 99% of psychiatrists will say yes.
Then my question to you, as you are as a qualified and professional psychiatrist, is in your professional opinion where is the mind, and indeed my mind located?
Now, almost all psychiatrists at this point will get very angry. They will say such questions are irrelevant, that you are being disrespectful. Some may even warn you. Remember, this is reflective defense behaviour because of what you have just exposed. Do not be intimidated. Press on.
Given the whole purpose of this assessment ordered by the court is to assess the competency of my mind, the question of where the mind is located is a perfectly logical and reasonable question. Are you saying you are not willing to answer or are not competent to answer? Now some smart psychiatrists may put the question to you.
I do not need to be an expert in Psychiatry or the location of the mind ?, because I am not the one doing an assessment of mind competency- you are. So the question is whether you are an competent to make such assessments if you cannot even prove the location of the mind? At this point a number of psychiatrists will terminate the interview. At this point, you need to be clear given they are not an expert on the domain information of the case, nor the location of the mind, no report can possibly produce an adverse finding without being prejudice.
Others may still force the point. You have every right to state that from this point on, you are not speaking with an expert in either domain knowledge nor competent as an expert of the mind. Pull out your tape recorder and start recording.
Origin of the word Honor
The word Honor originates from two very ancient 2nd Millenium Gaelic words Onóir and Onáire. The word Onóir originally meant “always, ever shining, brilliant, worthy of worship” and is derived from two Gaelic root words on meaning “always, ever” and óir meaning “golden, made of gold”. The word Onáire originally meant “always, ever respectful mind, or attentive mind” from on meaning “always, ever” and áire meaning “respectful mind, attention”. In the 5th Century, the Romans combined both concepts into one word Honor in Latin meaning “esteem, respect; position worthy of respect”.
In the first sense, Honor in light of its roots as Onáire is the volition to respect and abide by some act in accordance with some previous promise, oath or vow. Hence, Onáire as “honor” is to uphold the essence and intent of such a promise, oath or vow.
In the second sense, Honor as Onóir is a quality only possible by one who holds a valid office of great and ancient esteem and respect.
The oldest office and highest office of Honor since the origin of the word Onóir (honor) is Cuilliaéan of Ireland also known as the Holly Family (Holy family).
Honor is the second of (14) fourteen concepts of Volition. Honor is conceived and chosen in the mind, before it is exhibited in intention or behavior.
The concept of dishonor
Dishonor is a word defining two negative qualities with the first being a lack of integrity by acting in a manner contradicting some previous promise, oath or vow. The second negative quality is when one brings disgrace or disrepute to a position normally worthy of respect and worship.
Dishonor is equivalent to the Christian concept of being in a state of unrequited sin, therefore being in possession of an undischarged debt and liable for its payment. When an official fails to perform their duty and honor a valid negotiable instrument, then the debt and liability of the dishonor is equivalent to the face value of the valid negotiable instrument.
As all property rights are considered sourced from the Divine, when an officer dishonors their office, they are considered both “unclean” and “unworthy” to continue to handle decisions of property, nor associated instruments.
Furthermore, as the nature of honor in terms of office is a connection to the Divine from which authority to perform their duties, when dishonor is brought to the office, the particular officer is automatically excommunicated from such spiritual authority.
Origin of Oath
At the heart of Anglo-Saxon law from the 4th Century is the concept that “a mans’ oath is his bond” – in other words once a promise is given, it is expected to be kept. This of course is most often presented in terms of contracts. However, the foundation of law since these times and up to the present day is still based on oral testimony taking precedence over written documents (in memoriam).
The difference then between Anglo-Saxon law and Roman (Western) Law is the dependence on vows and oaths being true, in order that they can be monetized and bonded. In other words, the law of the Roman Cult and the Bar Associations/Society depends on the foundation of Anglo-Saxon law as demonstrated through Positive Law to function.
Valid Oath
An oath is only a valid oath when it is sworn in recognition of the rights of all men and women as Sponsors to Persons present within the court including the spirit of the living law and includes a pledge to speak honesty before the court. The touching of any object during such swearing is materially irrelevant to the validity of any oath.
The living law is present in a valid court of law when all words are given under oath. When officers of the court do not properly give oath, the living law is absent, even if all parties and witnesses show respect and due process of law.
A man or woman of good standing before the law is any man or woman having sworn an oath before the court, having been found to demonstrate respect for the living law and due process of law.
No one shall be denied the right to swear an oath before a valid court.
Necessity and oaths given "under duress"
The antithesis of a vow or oath given under consent is any vow, oath, sign or seal given by necessity under duress. It is the most feared of realizations of the courts and banks as it renders their monetized promissory notes null and void and therefore their court acts worthless and clear fraud.
An oath extorted by malice, force, or grave fear is null by the law itself.
Oaths and Testimony
No one should be heard within a valid court unless they have previously sworn a valid oath for that case. Furthermore, no testimony in written or oral form is valid unless a valid oath has previously been sworn.
The nature of consent
As outlined earlier, the Roman court system needs your consent (by tacit agreement or by declaring you incompetent) in order to underwrite their bonds and making money. But what do we exactly mean by Consent?
So Consent to the Bar and the Crown (Bank) is vital, not only to underwriting the value of any bonds created through their courts, but it is integral to making their administrative process both legal and lawful as a valid agreement. But how then does this work when we do not consent, or we refuse to comply? Well in the case of when a man or woman stands their ground, respecting the law and states for the record that they do not consent to any punative sentences or orders, but they shall comply only under duress and necessity to any administrative procedure during the court procedure, then any bonds are rendered worthless- and the court process to the bank is a giant waste of time.
However, when a man or woman is tricked by disinfo into not respecting the law and refuses to comply to some administrative process (excluding sentencing) by not appearing, then the court can use its trustee powers to declare the man or woman delinquent and therefore incompetent. When this occurs, the court may “legally” steal the energy of the man or woman as consent literally as if you signed your name or stood in court and agreed. Thus, the very worst action any man or woman can do it deliberately place themselves in dishonor as it makes the process for the court straightforward and simple.
Attendance
The private bar guild- forever obsessed in trickery via words – often use the word “appear” as the term for describing when a man or woman is present in a court room. The word appear comes from Latin appear meaning “to be seen, to show oneself and to wait/serve upon an official”. As no Divine Immortal Spirit having perfected their Ecclesiastical notices can be lawfully subjected to the inferior laws of the private bar guild, the correct term is attendance, to clear up a matter, not appearance.
The sole reason for attendance
It is true that if one does not attend court, then under the perverse rules of the private bar guild, such non-attendance will be viewed as admission of guilt and delinquency permitting the court to proceed with the matter on the basis that you are incompetence at standing on your own.
But attendance to their private court is not simply to prevent such trickery, it is primarily to have any matters cleared up once and for all- that you are the executor, that no official has been granted the right to represent you, that they have no jurisdiction, that you do not consent and that the matter must be dismissed by the judge with extreme prejudice, directed by you – the executor.
As the private bar guild is obsessed in games, delays, lies and trickery, it is likely that every possible trick, delay and confusion will be attempted to test your competence. Setting over the matter to another day is a trick. It is admitting the judge has some power to hear the matter. Do not fall for such tricks. If the judge will not dismiss the matter immediately on your instruction, then you make it clear the matter is dismissed. Do not agree for a matter to be held over as you are prepared to hear their arguments of claimed jurisdiction now, or dismiss the matter.
The bully judge will plow through as if you have said nothing.
Object, object and keep objecting, making clear that nothing they do has your consent, is within jurisdiction. If the bully judge rushes out to try and change the form of the court by “recess” immediately object to them “changing the form of the court” as they run out the door. Stand firm. Such bully judges can only get away with tyranny and corruption if you fold.
The judge playing “stupid” will pretend that they don’t know what you’re talking about- that they have never heard about these kinds of things before- perfect- they are admitting their own incompetence. Therefore motion for dismissal on lack of competence with extreme prejudice.
Above all remember, you choose to attend out of honor for the law, not to honor them and to clear up and matter of controversy not to agree to their jurisdiction.
Origin of the word Jurisdiction
The word Jurisdiction comes from combing two ancient Latin words iuro meaning “to swear, make an oath” and dicio meaning “power, influence, authority of word; to speak, to argue”. Therefore, Jurisdiction by definition is dependent upon the making of a sacred oath associated with speech or argument first before “some authority or power capable of determining the validity of such speech or argument”.
The common function of jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is without question one of the fundamental elements that must be resolved prior to the commencement of any matter before any court in order to ensure any subsequent orders, bills, bonds, bailments, securities and sentences are lawful.
Without even knowing the origin of the word, most people know that if a court does not have proper jurisdiction it cannot proceed with a case. We will be investigating both the common understandings of why as well as the deeper reasons in this article.
But how is jurisdiction defined by the private Bar guilds and their private courts in order to understand how it is tested? Under Roman Law, also known as Roman Cult Law, Common Law, Private International Law and Civil Law, there exists three (3) essential forms of Jurisdiction founded each on specific claims of Rights being Personal, Territorial and Subject Matter: (i) Personal Jurisdiction is claimed authority through jus in rem by claimed customary (Roman) law through lex situs (law of the place in which the property is situated) over a person, often regardless of their location; and (ii) Territorial Jurisdiction is claimed authority through jus gentium by claimed customary (Roman) law through lex loci (law of the place) confined to a bounded space, including all those (persons) residing therein and any events which occur there; and (iii) Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (subjectum) is claimed authority jus in personam through claimed customary (Roman) law through lex specialis (law governing a specific subject matter) over the subject of the legal questions involved in the suit.
Thus, if a court cannot establish uncontested jurisdiction of personal, territorial or subject-matter in accordance with ancient laws such as the laws of nations, then that particular court has absolutely no jurisdiction.
However, if a court can establish one or more arguments of jurisdiction then it may choose to proceed even though its imperfect jurisdiction on at least once count, may give rise to appeal.
Finally, a court that establishes all three forms of jurisdiction may be said to have "perfected jurisdiction" and therefore the argument of jurisdiction will not have any sound basis towards any appeal.
As far as nations and courts, most nations have more than one level of courts and more than one type of court, with the highest courts dealing with the most significant matters of law and the lowest sharing similar jurisdiction.
Rights of jurisdiction
In essence, jurisdiction of Roman Courts is through the presumption of ownership, expressed as rights.
Under the Roman system, the claims of jus in rem, jus gentium, jus in personam is the attempt to "perfect Jurisdiction" based on claimed Jurisdiction over one's soul, body and mind respectively: (i) jus in rem as Personal Jurisdiction is claimed "ownership" of the soul and name by ownership of the record of birth and existence of the birth certificate proving the ritual of "baptism" of salvaging the soul took place in a hospital. Furthermore, the existence of the Cestui Que Vie Trusts is proof of the "property" of the name and therefore "soul" owned by the Roman Cult and its partners; and (ii) jus gentium as Territorial Jurisdiction is claimed "ownership" of the flesh via the Live Birth Record of the baby being conveyed as "property" into one of the three Cestui Que Vie Trusts and a bond then issued against it and "sold" to the respective privately owned central bank of the state secretly making each and every citizen a privately owned "slave"; and (iii) jus in personam as Subject-Matter Jurisdiction is claimed "ownership" of the mind by consent via the acceptance of benefits and the existence of social security, health benefits, drivers license and other documentary proof of consent to be "under" the jurisdiction of the Roman court.
The Ecclesiastical and commercial importance of jurisdiction
It is one thing to follow a custom of claimed authority and to ensure such authority has been “perfected” before proceeding, but what is the deeper importance in law of Jurisdiction, particularly concerning our oath? As discussed previously, jurisdiction comes from combing two ancient Latin words iuro = “to swear, make an oath” and dicio = “power, influence, authority (of word)”. The second part of jurisdiction is also claimed as dicere meaning “to speak, to argue” which is also valid. Therefore, Jurisdiction has an essential connection to the making of a sacred oath associated with speech or argument before “some authority or power capable of determining the validity of such speech or argument”.
As a core function of the private Bar guild is the commercialization of our oath and honor through securities, bonds and bailments, it now makes perfect sense that such actions rely on the foundations of Jurisdiction as the making of a sacred oath associated with speech or argument before some authority or power capable of determining the validity of such speech or argument.
If Jurisdiction is not perfected, then the commercial products produced by the private court of the private Bar guild will be defective. Yet Jurisdiction also reveals a deeper “ecclesiastical” nature of itself- That the place for such a hearing, for such a vow must before some suitable ecclesiastical power having the authority and competence to adjudicate.
In other words, if the ecclesiastical authority of the court is properly challenged by an equal or higher ecclesiastical force, then by definition it cannot possess jurisdiction. Unfortunately, this deep and historic truth concerning the nature of jurisdiction is lost on many members of the private Bar guild who know little of the true nature of the foundation of their own laws.
The standard approach of the private Bar guild to jurisdiction.
In most private courts of the private guild of the Bar, establishing personal, territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction is relatively simple and fast so that in a few moments the court has perfected its jurisdiction simply by confirming the “name” of the accused, their “residence” and that they “understand” the charges against them.
In perfecting "personal" jurisdiction, the judge simply asks if you are (some name)? If you answer yes then you have established personal jurisdiction by virtue of the fact that the 1st Cestui Que Vie Trust created upon your birth conveyed your "name" from you to the state, with you only having equitable title. Name comes from the Latin nomen, meaning the name of a slave on a register.
In perfecting "territorial" jurisdiction, the judge simply asks for your residential address, or the location of the "res", the property. Once you answer any location within the boundaries of the nation-state then they have you on territorial jurisdiction.
Now when they say do you "understand" the charges against you, they are asking will you "stand under" the jurisdiction of the court to hear the matter. When you answer in the affirmative, they have perfected their jurisdiction - all in a matter of seconds.
Name
One of the most important issues everyone is told when they go to court is not to be dragged into the “name game” by the Judge or Magistrate when they may ask “what is your name?” at the start of a hearing, arraignment or trial. But what is really behind this? Why is the name so important? And is there any way to avoid an obvious consent to jurisdiction by non-consent.
The “Strawman” Roman Fiction Ownership Argument against admitting the name
Many years ago, it was revealed within the “truth movement” that when you admit to the name, you are admitting to acting as surety for a name you do not own, but is owned by the Roman Cult and its agencies. So you have just agreed to go surety for their legal fiction.
Once you agree to go surety by admitting to the name, then they have you on the first level of jurisdiction over you – personal jurisdiction.
Entering A Plea - Origin of the word Plea
The word Plea comes from the Latin word pleais meaning literally a “prayer to Rome” from Pleaides the name for the “Seven Sisters” being an acronym for the seven hills of ancient Rome. It is a deliberate corruption of the ancient Roman legal principle of plene or plenus literally meaning the accusation has been “fully, completely solidly or abundantly” stated and the accused may evoke their second opportunity to speak their defense as collocution.
In the absence of a valid Plea, a matter cannot proceed nor judgment be rendered.
What is the most common understanding of plea?
When you read a legal dictionary or investigate any of the documents of the private Bar guild concerning the concept of “plea”, you will find it is defined as a mostly procedural custom of “common law” whereby an answer is given by an accused in a civil or criminal case under the adversary system. The three generally accepted answers for a “plea” being Guilty, Not Guilty or No Contest.
There is however, another set of accepted pleas under the common law system called a “Peremptory plea” – the word peremptory from the Latin peremptio meaning to “destroy, prevent, kill”. Therefore a Peremptory plea if accepted by the rules of the private guild of the Bar literally “kills the case”.
There are several accepted versions of peremptory plea including: Plea of “autrefois convict”, also known as a res judicata meaning previously convicted of the same offence; and Plea of “autrefois acquit”, also known as a res judicata meaning previously acquitted or pardoned of the same offence.
A further and rarer form of plea exists called “demurrer” which requires a stop or pause by a party to an action, for the judgment of the court or another court on the question, whether, assuming the truth of the matter alleged by the opposite party, it is sufficient in law to sustain the action or defense, and hence whether the party resting is bound to answer or proceed further.
The word “demurrer” comes from the combination of Latin de (out, down) +muralis (fighting against). Thus demurrer is a call to the court to “cease fighting” until a matter of law is adjudicated.
Unfortunately, often when men and women have plea “demurrer” they do so without any adequate knowledge or basis to request an “interlocutory on a matter of law”- meaning an order, sentence, decree, or judgment, given in an intermediate stage between the commencement and termination of a cause of action, used to provide a temporary or provisional decision on an issue.
Ucadian Members do not Plea
While the corruption of the ancient Roman legal principle of Plene or Plenus to “Plea” is normally delivered within the Roman Courts in the manner of a demand or even intimidating threat by the Judge or Magistrate, under Roman Law the reply must remain solely and legitimately an “offering” by the accused.
By definition, the entering of any kind of Plea is tacit consent of the Jursidiction of the Roman Court. Therefore, a member of One Heaven or associated society has only one legitimate reply to a Roman Court and demand to plea in the formal response of demurrer.
Once the Ucadian Courts are operational and fair notice given to members of One Heaven, any member charged by a Roman Court with a serious offence including the potential penalty of imprisonment for two years or more is required to file the allegations of the offence into a valid Ucadian Court prior to using their Live Borne Record or status as a member within their demurrer or defense. The matter shall therefore be heard and adjudicated fairly in accordance with these canons and the charter and codes of law of their given society.
Plea presumes jurisdiction has been perfected
Before a contract can be agreed by entering a Plea, it is presumed as an ancient principle of law that Jurisdiction has been perfected concerning personal, territorial and subject matter.
In most private courts of the private guild of the Bar, establishing personal, territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction is relatively simple and fast so that in a few moments the court has perfected its jurisdiction simply by confirming the “name” of the accused, their “residence” and that they “understand” the charges against them.
Thus, once jurisdiction is perfected, a plea can be requested and once a plea is given, the accused has formally contracted with the court.
If, however, a judge or magistrate has failed to perfect jurisdiction and instead has ignored or overlooked fundamental matters of law to attempt to “force jurisdiction”, then a plea of demurrer may be used to suspend the court from continuing until the interlocutory matter of law concerning the failure of the court to properly establish jurisdiction can be heard by a separate court.
In all other cases, a plea of demurrer will be on the presumption that the court has perfected its jurisdiction against the accused and any suspension of procedures for a point of law will concern some other defect, not jurisdiction.
Origin of Demurrer
The word “demurrer” comes from the combination of Latin de (out, down) +muralis (fighting against). Hence the literal meaning of the word demurrer is to “cease fighting”. Thus demurrer is a call to the court to “cease fighting” and denial of consent to proceed until a matter of law is adjudicated.
A Demurrer is neither a form of plea or motion, but a formal request of suspension of court proceedings (suspension of hostilities) until the merits of the written demurrer may be examined.
A presiding judge or magistrate cannot deny the right of demurrer.
A judge that denies demurrer outright, or denies leave to prepare a motion automatically provides evidence of some predisposed bias and grounds for an immediate motion of recusal (removal) of the judge or magistrate from the matter.
Types of Demurrer
There are four (4) forms of Demurrer being General, Special, to Evidence and to Interrogatories: (i) A General Demurrer is a demurrer which objects to a complaint in its substance in failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and/or any claimed lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and (ii) A Special Demurrer is a demurrer which objects to a complaint in its form in which essential errors of fact, scrivener errors, errors contradicting the public record and other “special” examples may be shown and/or claimed lack of personal or territorial jurisdiction; and (iii) A Demurrer to Evidence is a demurrer which objects to at the conclusion of the evidence presented for a complaint on the ground of insufficient evidence, faulty or incorrectly presented evidence or other technical errors in material presentation; and (iv) A Demurrer to Interrogatories is a demurrer of answers offered by a witness as evidence for refusing to answer one or more anticipated questions expected to be asked of them.
In matters of criminal law, a General or Special Demurrer may not be requested and filed until after the presentation of any indictment. In such matters, the counsel or Pro Se will respond to the question of plea that a demurrer is requested and that leave from the court is sought to prepare the motion or if the paperwork is already completed, the prepared motion is then handed to the clerk to be filed.
In civil matters where a complaint is administratively filed, a general or special demurrer may also be administratively filed in response prior to any hearing.
Objection
The use of Objection is both a very powerful and potentially tricky right within the Courts of the Bar Guild. Objection goes to the heart of a Right of law whereby "he who does not assert his rights, has none".
In other words, one of the trickeries of the Courts of the Bar Guild is to process in an ordered fashion elements of an argument that when complete have stripped the logic of the defendant to argue they have the right to object, having failed to object at the appropriate time in appropriate respectful manner to a matter of evidence, procedure or right.
The trickery of Objection also plays into the question of jurisdiction. Unfortunately many people believe that Objection only applies to objection under the rules of the Bar Guild, when in fact the most important objection is the one based on the ancient principle of non-consent with an assertion presented to the court.
Common Law Right of Objection
A Common Law Right of Objection is the Right to Object to an assertion and claim presented to the court without admitting to any fact that you cede any rights no agree to be bound by the rules of the Bar Guild, thus if breaking such rules may be automatically deemed in dishonor.
Such an objection is critical when the Judge and Prosecution or Judge and Clerk begin any kind of procedural agreement before you as witness that may imply punitive implications. If you do not speak up with such a public display of an agreement being created before you, then by default you consent. This is a trick often played when the judge and prosecution wish to change the direction of a hearing, or trial when a defendant continues to assert their rights.
Such an Objection is raised the same as a normal procedural objection by speaking up and interrupting the claims of the other party with "Objection", or "I Object", usually followed up by "I do not consent" or "I do not consent and continue to reserve my rights in good faith."
Such an objection is not appropriate when challenging the testimony of a witness.
Objection to witness testimony and rules of evidence. The other key opportunity of objection is witness testimony and violation in the rules of evidence. In this example, the "Objection" must be followed up with the allegation of procedural fault.
Necessity - The nature of necessity
Compliance to an order or demand under necessity can never be lawfully claimed as consent, providing the party makes clear such compliance is “under duress” either vocally as well as including such words with any sign or seal.
Contrary to any statutes, rules or orders that are in conflict with this statement, when a man or woman professes that they complied to some order, demand or act out of necessity and “under duress”, then any oath, vow, sign or seal given is automatically null and void within seven (7) years of such an act or acts of necessity.
Excluding alleged serious offences involving violence, sexual abuse or dishonesty, no man or woman may be accused of any offence when professing they undertake or have complied with an act “under duress” as a necessity.
When a man or woman pronounces in advance that they shall comply to some order, demand, bond or promise out of necessity “under duress” then the subsequent execution of such an order, demand, bond or promise constitutes a clear, proven and serious act of fraud by the Executor or their appointed Trustees issuing such an instrument.
Types of Pro Se
There are three forms of Pro Se which one may choose to present themselves being (Roman) Person, Existence as Man or Woman or as a tribunal of superior Persons: (i) Pro Se without any qualification is assumed to mean Pro Se In Rem which translates as "for one's own property " or simply under the full jurisdiction of a Roman Court as a "thing"; and (ii) Pro Se In Vivus which translates as "for one's own behalf in one's own flesh and blood" which means one who attends or visits court as a living "flesh and blood" man, claiming such fact and therefore outside the jurisdiction of courts that cannot deal with anything but corporations and persons; and (iii) Pro Se In Triformis which translates as "for one's own behalf in three forms/persons" which means one who attends court by claiming their Live Borne Record from One Heaven and therefore the presence of a superior tribunal of a Divine Person, True Person and Superior Person contesting title and jurisdiction of any inferior (Roman) court.
Principles of Pro Se
Pro Se is a choice and a right, not a privilege. No court is permitted to place any conditions upon the acknowledgment of Pro Se. The court has adequate remedy available within the law should issues of competency, proprietary or due process arise from the behaviour of one who chooses Pro Se.
To deny Pro Se is to deny the existence of the law. Therefore, no order, ruling, sentence or judgment from a court that denied Pro se can be upheld as lawful under any valid system of law.
A court is not obliged to grant any special favor to one who chooses Pro Se than an ordinary advocate. However in the interest of Justice, such consideration of may be granted.
One who chooses Pro Se is obliged to act and perform in a manner befitting an advocate of the court, including appropriate professional dress, cleanliness, manners and respect of due process.
Guilt
Guilty is an ancient commercial legal term associated with Private Chartered Guilds of the Roman Cult throughout Europe from the 13th Century meaning either a payment made “in gold” to a Private Guild or a debt or fine owed to a Private Guild. The official currency of the Kingdom of the Netherlands until the introduction of the Euro was called gulden (guilder) in honor of the origin of the debt/currency system of ancient Private Chartered Guilds of the Roman Cult.
Origin of Guilt
The word Guilty originates from 14th Century English/Dutch gilde, from 13th Century Venetian/Italian gilda meaning “guild, payment (in gold), debt or fine owed to the guild”. The word gilda itself derived from 8th Century Khazarian/Magyar languages kulta meaning “gold”. In the Finnish language today, kulta still means “gold” and Kilta means “guild”.
Consistent with the ancient practices of Private Chartered Guilds of the Roman Cult from the 13th Century, a Guild could lawfully detain as “surety” a non-Guild member who was Guilty and therefore “unable or unwilling to pay a debt or fine owed to the Guild” until the debt was paid. If the person had insufficient gold to pay the Guild, the Guild could then issue a bond called a "Guilt Bond" against the flesh as surety and then sell it as a means of recovering the debt or fine owed to them. This practice has continued for more than 700 years until the present day with the Private Bar Guild one of the last surviving and fully functioning Private Chartered Guilds.
The "Plea" of Private Bar Court
When a non-Guild member of the Private Bar Guild is present in one of the Guild buildings dealing with the primary business of the Bar being organized global profit from crime (jobs), the Private Bar Guild members seek to force either a plea of “Guilty” or “Not-Guilty”: (i) a plea of “Guilty” in a building controlled by the Private Bar Guild is equivalent to saying "I will pay" and tacit consent of liability for a debt or fine owed to the Guild and is consent to the lawful detainment of the flesh of the accused as surety until the debt or fine is paid; or (ii) a plea of “Not-Guilty” in a building controlled by the Private Bar Guild is equivalent to saying "I refuse to pay" with the presumption of liability for a debt or fine owed to the Guild but belligerent refusal to pay therefore permitting the lawful detainment of the flesh of the accused as surety until the debt or fine is paid.
Contrary to the false claims of members of the Private Bar Guild, the plea or claim of "not guilty" is not the same as innocence as innocence describes a complete absence of legal guilt, whereas "not guilty" presumes the existence of guilt and describes either (a) belligerent refusal to pay, or (b) a choice by the Guild not to proceed with enforcing the payment of a debt.
In the private Courts of the Private Bar Guild, the member that brings the accusation of a debt is called the Guiltor and is normally the Pro-Se-Cutis as they perform the perverse act of pretending to be both the flesh equivalent to the accused and beneficiary of the constructive trust being the suit. The accused is then considered the Guiltee (same pronounciation of "guilty").
Contrary to any claimed international, constitutional or conventional law that assumes an accused is "innocent until proven guilty", the Private Bar Guild always presumes the accused holds the formal position as Guiltee (same pronounciation of "guilty") regardless of plea unless the Private Bar Guild rules "not-guilty" at the end of the trial or summary-judgment hearing.
A member of the Private Bar Guild such as a judge or magistrate that forces an accused to plead either “Guilty” or “Not Guilty” to the exclusion of other valid pleas means that without valid consent of the accused, the judge or magistrate accepts the debt and liability personally.
