I have never understood how these guys think this crap will work. Assuming for the sake of argument, which is a huge leap, they're right no ordinary person or even a majority of the lawyers know about it, they think you’re nuts. The court would move right along like it didn't exist and thus the super secret wording, cancelled stamps and all the other nonsense would fail. What makes the Sooey’s believe a judge is bound to follow the Ctc law, assuming it even exists in the form the Sooey’s believe it does? Are the judges wearing shock collars so that when the super secret fiction is exposed and they don’t change their rulings in favor of the defendant it shocks the hell out of them?
Bottom line is you have to be border line insane to believe it's going to work. At the very minimum as a Sui you should sit back and ask yourself, is this going to work in court considering most lawyers and judges say people are crazy that discuss it? Not even Galileo thought he had a chance in hell in winning a case to convince the church the Earth was not the center of the Universe. Even if you’re right you’re going to lose….thus you are insane to believe you have any chance of winning using those arguments.
Well said, SteveSy. The problem may be that they are led to believe that it does work from some story that originated somewhere in someone's imagination where it did work. And as demonstrated by MRG, if it doesn't work for you, you didn't do it right. The "magic" is that's there's no "right" way to do it.
Seems like if you have a particular document notarized, you weren't supposed to have it notarized. If you didn't have that document notarized, you were supposed to have it notarized. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Actually, toss that out the window. They're looking for "easy" (which is actually the exact opposite) answers to their problems...instead of just not causing the problems in the first place. Anything not to be held accountable for their actions - and make everyone they deal with miserable.
If you read that Sui nonsense and it feels like your head is going to implode, you don't need to be committed.
The new Sui competency test, picture this at arraignment:
SUI: Black robed corrupt lawyer of the government oppressors, I hereby present you with a TRUE AND ACTUAL AFFIDAVIT OF THE NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY ON THE DEBT INSTRUMENTED BY THE REPEATED VIOLATION OF UCC-X WHICH PROHIBITS YOU FROM USING MY COPYRIGHTED NAME and a JURISDICTIONAL VIOLATION OF COMMON-LAW DISAGREEMENT BY CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
JUDGE: I'll take that as a non-guilty by reason of mental defect. I'm remanding to you a Sui deprogramming facility until such time that you no longer believe in magic red stamps.
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie
What's important to remember is that they all KNOW that it worked for some guy in Arizona or a friend's babysitter's hairdresser's uncle.
It worked because that guy on that web site is selling sure-fire documents supported by a whole list of unverifiable and probably apohcryphal testimonials.
It worked when their massive pile of briefs ala Gabby Hayes beat a traffic ticket when the officer didn't make it to court.
It worked because Kitchie still has a couple of levels of appellate courts left before they impound her car or sell her property for back taxes.
It worked because the guy who lost was facing corrupt judges.
It worked because David Merrill said an unnamed suitor won in an uncited legal action of some undescribed nature.
And, despite all of that, what they're doing MUST be right because we, even Mr. Sykes, say they're wrong.
Well, there's no doubt that the internet enables the reinforcement of the results of mental illness amongst its denizens who are ill, via strange stamps, mysterious invocations, bogus cites, and all the rest.
Quite frankly, I don't give a sh!t, it's amusing. Nobody, particularly including the government, will ever "fix" humanity. Therefore, I'm just along for the ride and the laughs.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.
. wrote:Well, there's no doubt that the internet enables the reinforcement of the results of mental illness amongst its denizens who are ill, via strange stamps, mysterious invocations, bogus cites, and all the rest.
Excellent point. And it's the reason that my grandparents keep my OCD-Schizophrenic uncle on dial-up and used me to block everything but his stock and software updating sites.
Those of you on the east coast (especially in Florida) may be familiar with some of my uncle's work. He sneaks into my grandparents' wallets at night, removes the cash, washes it, irons it, runs it through the printer, and puts it back in their wallets. What does he print? "For Deposit Only [account number]" and at one time "Impeach Clinton". My grandparents drive up to New Hampshire every year to visit...littering these bills up and down the coast.
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie
MOST STATES DO NOT HAVE COMMON LAW CRIMES IN THE YEAR 2007. MOST STATES HAVE ADOPED CODES OF CRIMINAL LAW AND CODES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. THOSE CODES DEFINE CRIMES, DEFINE THE ELEMENTS OF CRIMES, FREQUENTLY DEFINE DEFENSES, AND DEFINE THE EXACT PROCEDURES USED TO PROSECUTE THOSE CRIMES.
When I was a very young man in law school, at the University of South Carolina, there was a course called "Common Law Crimes," because, in large part, South Carolina had not adopted a criminal code and still used common law pleadings and procedures.
Since that date, (in fact, beginning in the mid-1970's) SC has enacted a code of laws (and procedures) not unlike the United States Code. See it here: http://www.scstatehouse.net/code/statmast.htm You will notice that SC now has two titles dealing with crimes:
Title 16-- Crimes and Offenses
Title 17-- Criminal Procedures
In title 16, you will find an extensive discussion/definition of the crime of murder and lesser offenses where the killing of another human is involved.
Codification of the Common Law has been an on-going process since the 1840's. Many folks did not want to leave what the "law" was to the elite, judicial analysis of common law precedents and commentary. Therefore, reformers pushed state legislatures and Congress to "codify" the law to remove caprice and uncertainty. While you can criticize the results, Codification won. By the way, the "end" of the common law has nothing to do with Erie. That case stands for the propsition that there is no federal common law in diversity cases. Erie says that the common law (or, now, statutory law) of the jurisdiction whose law would otherwise apply in state court controls, although federal procedure applies.
There is federal common law in non-diversity (federal jurisdiction) cases, where there is no applicable codification of the law in the US Code. One example is the adoption of UCC art. 9 in the context of competing liens, one held by the SBA (a federal agency) and the other (s) held by banks. The 5th Circuit held that art 9 had become the common law of the US for purposes of lien perfection and lien priority in a case in which the SBA and the banks were fighting for superiority (banks won, SBA lost).
You missed my point and the perspective I was expressing it from.
I'll try to explain:
Even in the state of Nature, killing someone is a violation of the laws of Nature.
This is a common law world wide. A global common law.
This is not a crime because it is recognized by your governments' public policy, revised statutes, codes, rules, regulations, etc...
It was, is, and shall always be a crime, and it was recognized long before the idea of the United States of America was even imagined by the People.
Prof wrote:These concepts really are not very complicated, and actually make sense.
aksis wrote:...Even in the state of Nature, killing someone is a violation of the laws of Nature.
This is a common law world wide. A global common law.
This is not a crime because it is recognized by your governments' public policy, revised statutes, codes, rules, regulations, etc...
It was, is, and shall always be a crime, and it was recognized long before the idea of the United States of America was even imagined by the People.
Such sophistry belies the real nature of humans in groups.
Not sophistry -- but simple idiocy. Homicide and murder are treated very differently throughout history. For example, to prevent feuds, some cultures required payment of a death benefit. (See ancient Israel; the Danelaw and werguild (SP?)).
Others gave fathers unlimited power over their families including murder of all members. See Rome, Abraham in the old testitment. Other cultures practiced massive human sacrifice -- Aztecs and Maya.
Killing slaves or members of other tribes or other races has almost never been considered "wrong." Killing women who dishonor the family is still practiced throughout the Moslem world. Hindu's practiced suttee (sp?) (burning the wife with the body of the dead husband).
And, at the time of the American Revolution, in most places, masters were permitted to kill slaves without punishment.
aksis wrote:...Even in the state of Nature, killing someone is a violation of the laws of Nature.
This is a common law world wide. A global common law.
This is not a crime because it is recognized by your governments' public policy, revised statutes, codes, rules, regulations, etc...
It was, is, and shall always be a crime, and it was recognized long before the idea of the United States of America was even imagined by the People.
Such sophistry belies the real nature of humans in groups.
Not sophistry -- but simple idiocy. Homicide and murder are treated very differently throughout history. For example, to prevent feuds, some cultures required payment of a death benefit. (See ancient Israel; the Danelaw and werguild (SP?)).
Others gave fathers unlimited power over their families including murder of all members. See Rome, Abraham in the old testitment. Other cultures practiced massive human sacrifice -- Aztecs and Maya.
Killing slaves or members of other tribes or other races has almost never been considered "wrong." Killing women who dishonor the family is still practiced throughout the Moslem world. Hindu's practiced suttee (sp?) (burning the wife with the body of the dead husband).
And, at the time of the American Revolution, in most places, masters were permitted to kill slaves without punishment.
You dare support the idea that killing can be lawful?
That it can be justified, because of what? Custom? Unjust laws? Ignorance?
You simply provided evidence of people living in violation of the Law.
Where are these tribes and civilizations now?
They have ceased to exist or are in a process of being destroyed, Or, they ceased living in violation of the Law... and prospered.
As I said, you are an idiot. I did not say that killing was lawful, although it certainly is lawful in Texas. As the comedian said, "Other states have declared a moritorium on the death penalty; Texas put in an express lane."
In Texas, it is lawful to kill to defend property -- not just the person.
Another example, in the Jehadist world view, killing innocents while killing infidels is fine -- "God will know his own." (The innocents will go to paradise.)
In the Bible, God gives Moses 10 Commandments. One states: "Thou shalt not kill." Ex. 20:13. But, see Ex. 22: 2: "If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall be blood be shed for him." Or, see Ex. 22: 18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Or, at 19, "Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death."
Of course it is legal to kill, in this and many other cultures and times.
Natural law certainly does not condemn killing -- for the law of nature is about death.
Only civilization -- and the peculiar civilization that evolved in the West, during the Enlightment, has ever really suggested that all human life (and, for some) all animal life is sacred. (I don't count the Jainn-- there are not many of them.)
If it did not work it is likely you did something incorrectly.
HOW WOULD WE KNOW IF IT WAS DONE CORRECTLY?
Did the man being charged do his paperwork himself or did he have help?
SEVERAL OF US HAVE BEEN HELPING BUT NONE OF US HAVE ACTUALLY DONE THIS BEFORE, ONLY WHAT WE HAVE READ AND BASED ON THINGS PEOPLE HAVE SAID WHEN WE TALKED TO THEM.
The CERTIFICATION OF NON RESPONSE should not have said CERTIFICATION.
WHAT SHOULD HAVE IT SAID? WE WERE TOLD A LETTER TITLED "CERTIFICATION OF NON-RESPONSE" NEEDED TO BE SENT ONCE THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.
It should have been an AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH IN THE FORM OF A CERTIFICATION OF NON RESPONSE.
WE SENT AN AFFIDAVIT BY SPECIAL VISITATION FOLLOWED BY A CERTIFICATION OF NON-RESPONSE OF WHICH THEY RECEIVED THE 7TH DAY AFTER THE AFFADAVIT.
Was it apostiled or just notarized?
NOTARIZED... WHATS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO?
You probably needed to wait until AFTER the TENTH day, and likely jumped the gun by going on the SIXTH day.
THE AFFADAVIT SAID 5 DAYS AND WE WERE ALSO TOLD 5DAYS IN ALL THE MATERIAL WE HAVE READ. CAN WE REDUE THIS PROCESS?
Also why did you send the same CERTIFICATION OF NON RESPONSE paperwork out twice?
CERT. NON-RESP. WENT OUT ONCE BUT IT WENT OUT WITH COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL DOCS SENT.
Your copyright papers might have been worded incorrectly.
HOW SO? WE HAVE READ 9 DIFFERENT COPYRIGHT NOTICES AND THEY ALL LOOK NEAR THE SAME. IS THERE AN UPDATED ONE???
Did you have the four red fox stamps in each corner?
NEVER HEARD OF THIS AND NOT SURE WHAT YOUR SPEAKING OF, WHAT IS THIS???
Did you have the post office cancel the stamps?
AGAIN, NOT SURE WHAT YOUR SPEAKING OF?
Did you mail it to yourself from the same post office that cancelled the stamps on the paperwork?
AGAIN, NOT SURE WHAT YOUR SPEAKING OF?
This is a very important step.
WHICH STEP? THE STAMPS OR EVERYTHING?
Are you certain you put the whole court on Notice?
EVERYONE THAT WE WERE TOLD TO INCLUDING THE HEAD JUDGE, THE TWO JUDGES HANDLING THE CASE, THE D.A. HANDLING THE CASE AS WELL AS THE HEAD D.A. ALSO THE MAIN COURT CLERK AND EVEN BAILBONDS COMPANY AND MAN.
Did you include the Clerk of Court?
YES
Did you include Risk Management?
NOT SURE WHO THIS IS BUT WE INCLUDED THE PRESIDING JUDGE, IS THIS CORRECT????????
Did you Notice each PARTY AT INTEREST by certified mail return receipt?
YES
Did you get the Green Cards back?
YES
The notary should have known to do that.
DO WHAT?
Did you send copies of the Green Cards out with your second mailing?
YES
Did you make sure to locate a notary that specializes in these things?
WE ASKED AROUND WHO CAN DO IT FOR US AND A NICE LADY SAID SHE COULD DO IT FOR US BUT SHE NEVER SAID SHE SPECIALIZES IN IT, SHE DOES A LOT AWORK FOR IMMIGRANTS SO MAYBE SHE HAS DONE IT A FEW TIMES BEFORE
Not all notaries know what they are doing when it comes to this.
HOW CAN WE FIND ONE LOCAL TO DO THIS???
Also, are you sure that this is one of the instances where using a notary is called for?
NO???????????
If you use a notary when you were supposed to be doing it yourself, it will not work.
HOW WOULD WE KNOW WHEN TO USE AND WHEN NOT TO USE???
Did you include the letter rogatory?
NOT SURE WHAT THIS IS???
Do you have a certified copy of the judge's Oath of Office?
NO, HOW CAN WE GET THIS??? HOW CAN IT HELP WITH THE CASE???
There was no need to send a "NOTICE BY WRITTEN COMMUNICATION/SECURITY AGREEMENT."
WE WERE TOLD TO SEND IT JUST TO MENTION EACH PARTY INVOLVED ONE BY ONE, IS THIS INCORRECT??? HOW ELSE WOULD WE HAVE PUT THE WHOLE COURT HOUSE ON NOTICE??? WE NEEDED TO HAVE ON RECORD THAT EVERYONE INVOLVED WAS INFORMED WITH THE USE FEE INVOLVED, CORRECT??? HOW ELSE COULD WE HAVE DONE THIS???
This could go against you.
HOW SO??? CAN WE CORRECT IT??? PERHAPS RESENDING THE CORRECT DOCUMENTS OUT, IN THE CORRECT ORDER, IN THE CORRECT WAY, WAITING THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF TIME BEFORE SENDING THEM A DEFAULT JUDGEMENT OF NON-PROS IN OUR FAVOR?????
Also a SPECIAL VISITATION is only served in person, under the supplemental rules for Admiralty.
SEE WE WERE TOLD TO SEND IT OUT TO THE OFFICERS INVOLVED VIA REGISTERED MAIL AND THE PRINCIPALS INVOLVED VIA IN-PERSON BUT IT WAS POSSIBLE TO SEND THEM ALL VIA REGISTERED MAIL BUT WITH GREEN CARDS BACK, AND THats WHAT WE DID... IF THIS IS INCORRECT CAN WE CORRECT IT???
What was in the PRIVATE AGREEMENT?
STANDARD PRIVATE AGREEMENT WHICH CONSIST ON 2 PAGES(In consideration for Creditor (a) constituting the source, origin, substance, and being, i.e. basis of ”pre-existing claim,” from which the existence of Debtor is derived, and the basis upon which Debtor functions as a transmitting utility, i.e. serves as a conduit, granting Creditor capacity for interacting, contracting, and exchanging goods and services in commerce with other artificial/juristic persons; (b) constituting the source of Debtor’s assets, via the sentient existence, exercise of faculties, and labor of Creditor, which provides valuable consideration sufficient for supporting any contract whatsoever that Debtor may execute and concerning which Debtor may be regarded as bound, and (c) providing the security for payment of all sums now due and owing, and as might become due and owing, by Debtor, Debtor, for valuable consideration, does hereby and herewith Agree and Covenant that Debtor shall undertake the obligation of (i) functioning and serving as a transmitting utility for the benefit of Creditor, granting Creditor ability for engaging in commerce with other juristic persons, and (ii) indemnifying, defending, and holding Creditor harmless from and against any and all liability, claims, demands, orders, summonses, warrants, judgments, damages, costs, losses, liens, levies, depositions, lawsuits, legal actions, penalties, fines, interests, and expenses whatsoever, both absolute and contingent, due and as might become due, now existing and hereafter arising, howsoever evidenced, suffered, incurred by, and imposed on Debtor, and for whatever reason, purpose, and cause whatsoever. Debtor, for valuable consideration, does also hereby and herewith expressly acknowledge, consent, and agree that Creditor cannot and must not, under any circumstances, nor in any manner whatsoever, be deemed an accommodation party, nor a surety, for Debtor.)
Are you absolutely certain you did everything correctly?
NO, NOT NOW, WHAT IS THE PROCEDURE INVOLVED TO DO THIS CORRECTLY AND ARE YOU ABLE TO HELP??? WE WOULD EVEN PAY YOU FOR YOUR ADVICE, WE JUST CANT LET ANYTHING HAPPEN TO OUR VERY GOOD FRIEND AND EMPLOYER THAT HAS BEEN TAKING CARE OF US FOR YEARS...
When you use this stuff you have to dot every "i" and cross every "t."
WE WENT THRU EVERYTHING WE THOUGHT WAS CORRECT AND PROOF READ THEM SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE ACTUALLY SENDING THEM OUT, BUT AFTER TALKING TO YOU IT SEEMS MAYBE WE SENT OUT A FEW THINGS THAT WAS NOT CORRECT AND NOT ENOUGH STUFF, SO PLEASE HELP US.... THANK YOU SO FAR FOR YOUR HELP...
Also what exactly did you put the court on notice OF?
BUT THEM ON NOTICE OF MY USE FEE FOR MY COPYRIGHTED NAME VIA "NOTICE BY WRITTEN COMMUNICATION/SECURITY AGREEMENT" AND "AFFADAVIT BY SPECIAL VISITATION", IS THIS CORRECT??? WERE WE SUPPOSE TO PUT THEM ON NOTICE OF ANYTHING ELSE???
This is very important.
WHATS THAT???
When the accused went to court did he go straight to the judge and say:
1. "I am here to contract?"
2. "Who wants to contract?"
3. "What is your name?"
4. "Do you have a claim against me?"
5. "Does anyone here have a claim against me?"
6. "I am here to contract."
7. "Who wants to contract?"
etc.?
NO, SHOULD THIS BEEN DONE??? IF IT SHOULD BE DONE, WE ARE SURE IT STILL COULD BE DONE DUE TO THE MEDICAL PROBLEMS THE DRIVER HAS BEEN HAVING BECAUSE OF THEM THE DRIVER HAS NOT BEEN GOING TO COURT AND ONLY THE ATTORNEYS THE STRAWMAN DRIVER HIRED AND HAS BEEN POST PONING THE CASE...
This should work if you do it right.
PLEASE TELL US WHAT TO DO AND HOW TO DO IT IN THE ORDER IT NEEDS TO BE DONE, PLEASE!!!!!!!
If it does not work it is because you did it wrong.
WE ARE QUITE SURE IF YOU TEACH US WE WONT DO ANYTHING WRONG, SO PLEASE TEACH US.... TAHNK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND HELP!!!!!!!!!!!
GOD BLESS YOU ALL AND GOD WILLING WE WILL HAVE THIS ALL RESOLVED SOON, THANKS TO YOU ALL....
IT SEEMS MAYBE WE SENT OUT A FEW THINGS THAT WAS NOT CORRECT AND NOT ENOUGH STUFF
You always, always must send out enough stuff. Even some extra stuff. Everyone knows that you can never send out too much stuff. He better send out a whole lot more stuff right away or obviously he will lose.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.
aksis wrote:
Even in the state of Nature, killing someone is a violation of the laws of Nature.
This is a common law world wide. A global common law.
The laws of nature require that animals kill, without consent, other forms of life. Go watch the Nature channel, you obviously don't know what really happens here on Earth.
NO, NOT NOW, WHAT IS THE PROCEDURE INVOLVED TO DO THIS CORRECTLY AND ARE YOU ABLE TO HELP??? WE WOULD EVEN PAY YOU FOR YOUR ADVICE, WE JUST CANT LET ANYTHING HAPPEN TO OUR VERY GOOD FRIEND AND EMPLOYER THAT HAS BEEN TAKING CARE OF US FOR YEARS...
These people just love throwing money away.
I should post some crap there and see if someone will pay me money because I know the secret process to get the ghost of Thomas Jefferson to notarize your document.
Does anyone know where this case is actually happening? I am curious to follow it as I always wondered what would happen to these (Su)idiots in the face of real charges.
Words suitable for use in polite company escape me in conveying my disgust at this "movement".
