THIS IS WHAT A SOVEREIGN TRUELY IS!!!

[Optimus]

freeman in court - judge bows to Sovereign - Canada



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzjv20sC5CY

[Freeski]

Just amazing!

Here's a Rense story excerpt about this:

Judge Bows To Sovereign
By Greg Reese
9-5-10
http://www.rense.com/general92/sov.htm

There is a game being played against humanity for the simple goal of having the many serve the few. This goal is accomplished not with force, but by tricking humanity into a submissive role. The heart of the game is what is known as the Law. It is Common Law knowledge that humanity stands above government and government serves man. But by way of trickery, humanity is persuaded to submit their authority and serve beneath government through contracts. Under Common Law so long as a human being does no harm to another's property, which includes their body, then one remains a free sovereign individual. All other laws are known as statutory laws and by definition they require an agreement of both parties. In other words, if you don't agree to a statute law, then you are not obligated by it. We are tricked into agreement with tactics seen in the video below.
 
In the video our hero was given a name, or a legal entity, at birth; KEITH THOMPSON. And this name is legally owned by the Crown of England and subject to Admiralty/Maritime Law. Our hero is not KEITH THOMPSON, he is not a name or a legal entity, he is a living soul incarnated in human form. But if a Judge can get our hero tocontract, or to agreethat he is KEITH THOMPSON, then he submits to the authority of the Crown and agrees to the statute laws. Game, Set, Match. It happens every day. This is all carefully written into the letter of the Law and therefore is considered fair play. Didn't you read all the rules? What the tyrants call fair play, I call a deceitful trap, but the reality is that you can beat the game.
 
It is no different than a bully in the school yard yelling at you to "Come Here". You have no obligation to obey the bully, but if you do submit and obey, then through your actionsyou are agreeing to be the subordinate. The same applies with government, if you agree that you are the NAME then you agree to be the subordinate. And if you obey an order, then through your actions you agree to be the subordinate. (pic 1) In the video you will see the Judge playing these two strategies against our hero. He attempts to get our hero to identify himself as the legal entity KEITH THOMPSON, and he attempts to intimidate him into submission by barking orders and calling on the (pic 2) court-room officers to forcibly remove him.
 
Our hero knows who he is, he knows he is the only true authority and because he knows this, he acts the part; honorable and peaceful, he does not identify himself as the legal entity, he is not intimidated by the bully tactics, and as you will see in the video, (pic 3) the Judge ends up bowing to him as the sovereign just before fleeing the court-room. Judges bow, it is a ritual they perform at the start and end of the day, but this was not the end of his day. He bowed to our hero just before abandoning the court-room, to give way to his authority. (pic 4) Our hero then lawfully takes command of the court and dismisses the charges before leaving peacefully and of his own free will.

[WarChest]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHk9KUFlk2M

This one is interesting also.

[Freeski]

Ian' Parking Ticket Trial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6IS-edTEH4&feature=fvw
30 min.

This would be funny, even ridiculous, if it wasn't so serious.

[Kilgore Trout]

This one is good too. good info a little audio trouble but not too much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHk9KUFlk2M&feature=related

[Freeski]

Here's what not to do - referring to the courtroom spectator and his outburst.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyPvQ12SkAQ

6 min

[Freeski]

freeman in court - judge bows to Sovereign - Canada



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzjv20sC5CY

Unfortunately this dude did not take over and close the proceedings. This is why you really have to know your stuff before playing with fire. Nevertheless, it's still great to see people standing up.

Guelph man linked to court video fined $260
September 30, 2010
Thana Dharmarajah, Mercury staff
http://news.guelphmercury.com/article/696416

GUELPH — A city man whose initial court proceedings were videotaped and uploaded on YouTube has 15 days to pay a $260 fine.

Keith Thompson failed to show in Guelph’s provincial offences court Thursday but his trial proceeded in his absence. The court found him guilty of two offences of illegally parking a car outside a driveway or a legal off-street parking area.

On each offence, Thompson was fined $130.

[Kilgore Trout]

Let's say then we know our status as free people , explain that to the judge and yet we are ignored , what redress of grievance do we have at that point?

[Freeski]

Let's say then we know our status as free people , explain that to the judge and yet we are ignored , what redress of grievance do we have at that point?

Appeal your ass off until you're broke and homeless?

I guess as people get smarter and more knowledgeable, we'll have some wins on the record and can use that as case law. It really is awesome, though, to see a growing number of people making their stand.

[Kilgore Trout]

For the last hour I have been watching all kinds of "free people" make their plea and it seems to sound good to my ears but they end up most times worse off then when they started. I would love for this to work but it seems like all of these "judges" disregard them. This gentleman tries to ask a judge a few simple questions and he is ignored at every turn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cZu-Nf9hfA&feature=channel

I suggest watch/listen to the end because he does finally get the questions out yet only to a bailif but not the judge.

[Freeski]

For the last hour I have been watching all kinds of "free people" make their plea and it seems to sound good to my ears but they end up most times worse off then when they started. I would love for this to work but it seems like all of these "judges" disregard them. This gentleman tries to ask a judge a few simple questions and he is ignored at every turn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cZu-Nf9hfA&feature=channel

I suggest watch/listen to the end because he does finally get the questions out yet only to a bailif but not the judge.

I've encountered several judges over the past year and either they do not actually know the law, or they are actively manipulating it. My gut says it's the latter. It's one extreme or the other, but both are unacceptable for someone with that much supposed power. Same goes for the police.

Haven't seen this clip yet but will do so.

[s3d1t0r]

For the last hour I have been watching all kinds of "free people" make their plea and it seems to sound good to my ears but they end up most times worse off then when they started. I would love for this to work but it seems like all of these "judges" disregard them. This gentleman tries to ask a judge a few simple questions and he is ignored at every turn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cZu-Nf9hfA&feature=channel

I suggest watch/listen to the end because he does finally get the questions out yet only to a bailif but not the judge.

No judge is going to sacrifice his career by making a ruling that goes against or depreciates the power of the state or federal government in any way.  This is obviously not discussed publicly, but is indeed the status quo.

[Freeski]

For the last hour I have been watching all kinds of "free people" make their plea and it seems to sound good to my ears but they end up most times worse off then when they started. I would love for this to work but it seems like all of these "judges" disregard them. This gentleman tries to ask a judge a few simple questions and he is ignored at every turn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cZu-Nf9hfA&feature=channel

I suggest watch/listen to the end because he does finally get the questions out yet only to a bailif but not the judge.

BTW - here in Canada (Ontario), judges, court officials and lawyers pretend or try to make us believe that recording devices are not allowed in court -- and this is a lie. Either they don't know the law or don't like the law. Again I strongly suspect that latter but because the law society is a secret society, it's hard to know what actually makes them tick.

I can't speak for U.S. jurisdictions but so much of this deception is similar in Canada, the U.S., Britain and Australia.

------------------------

Although the Courts of Justice Act [s. 136 (2)] indicates that tape recorders may be used unobtrusively for note-taking purposes by lawyers, parties acting in person and journalists with authorization from the judge, Ontario courts are inconsistent in their practice of allowing tape recorders in courtrooms. This inconsistency of practice has persisted.

Panel on Justice and the Media (as instituted by the Ontario Attorney General)

14. notwithstanding that in April 1989 the then Chief Justice of Ontario issued a Practice Direction stating that:

Subject to any order made by the presiding judge as to non-publication of court proceedings, and to the right of the presiding judge to give such directions from time to time as he or she may see fit as to the manner in which an audio recording may be made at a court hearing pursuant to s. 146 [now s. 136] of the Courts of Justice Act, the unobtrusive use of a recording device from the body of the courtroom by a solicitor, a party acting in person, or a journalist for the sole purpose of supplementing or replacing handwritten notes may be considered as being approved without an oral or written application to the presiding judge. [you don't even need permission]

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90c43_e.htm

They bury this "right" because it's strangely worded in the "exceptions" section.

Funny how Obama tonight talked about the complexity of tax law and how it favours some over others. It's all intentional.

On the other hand, being a statute, the above doesn't even matter to a sovereign in a declared common law court -- at least theoretically.

Funny how all of the complexity in law comes in the shit that doesn't even apply to the common man. They've sucked us in!

[Freeski]

Oops - I forgot to mention WHY they don't want recording devices in court: it's because judges often get it wrong, overstep their "authority", and make stupid remarks -- and thus need to tamper with what becomes the official record. Yes, they edit the transcripts before they are released. It's nothing short of obstruction of justice. There's plenty of evidence on this and I have witnessed it myself.

[Freeski]

This one is a speeding stop and the dude (who may be "drunk") is a riot. He really seems like he's got a grasp of the whole common law position -- unlike the cop who calls a supervisor and says: "the subject doesn't believe in common law", which is the complete opposite of what's going on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtkdDMSXMmc&feature=related
10 min

He claims the officer is trying to enforce legislation, as opposed to law, which apparently negates the whole thing.

Too bad there's no conclusion!

[Freeski]

Here's an amazing 3-part video on the freeman concept. These American guys seem to know their stuff.

Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQzrfJbbj_o&feature=fvw
Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLrG9mVl10A&feature=channel
Part 3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB5T-YZJt6Y&feature=channel

It seems like the great scam is real. But still, we need to do a lot of learning before taking this as gospel.

[birther truther tenther]

This sovereign citizen crap is so comical.  

This man's biggest mistake is that he APPEARED in court under his legal name!!!!!!

If your going to play this sovereign citizen game, then don't ever voluntarily go to court.

[Georgiacopguy]

I sincerely do not think the judge was bowing, i think he was stooped over to organize paperwork or something else rather mundane.

[TheCaliKid]

Unfortunately this dude did not take over and close the proceedings. This is why you really have to know your stuff before playing with fire.

How?

[TheCaliKid]

I sincerely do not think the judge was bowing, i think he was stooped over to organize paperwork or something else rather mundane.

Did you watch the video? The picture doesn't tell you anything in is this regard.

[TheCaliKid]

This sovereign citizen crap is so comical.  

This man's biggest mistake is that he APPEARED in court under his legal name!!!!!!

If your going to play this sovereign citizen game, then don't ever voluntarily go to court.

^ Agreed.

There is a guy on the DailyPaul forum who drives without plates on his vehicle and without a drivers license. He's never been arrested or been to court. (so he claims)

I guess his tactic is to send out a notarized letter, telling the court or police department that they have 10 days time in which to refute his claims about what they are doing is fraud and illegal. So far it has worked for him every time.

He parked a trailer on the street in front of his house, and the local PD ticketed him for it. Very similar to this Canadian man's deal, but he never went to court for it, and it was not on the docket - he got out of it.

I can't for the life of me remember his username over there. 

[egypt]

I sincerely do not think the judge was bowing, i think he was stooped over to organize paperwork or something else rather mundane.

It looked like a "distinct" bow to me.

Love, e

[TheCaliKid]

Just searched....his name is "juliusbragg", he has lots of good posts over there.


Pulled over today with no license, license plate, or registration

Submitted by juliusbragg on Fri, 04/30/2010 - 22:44

in * Daily Paul Liberty Forum

A CHP officer came up behind me today on 680N and turned his lights on, because I dont have a plate, I knew he didnt have a warrant, I know I didnt commit any Crime, so if I pulled over, it would be considered an "Arrest by Consent". I continued to my exit, about 3/4 of a mile. On the exit the officer said "Pull over right here" through his loud speaker, I ignored him and continued to the light, turned my blinker, and turned. He repeated "pull over right now", I continued on, and took a right and pulled into a church parking lot.

The officer came to my passenger window, I immediately asked "Am I under arrest?", he said "No", I said, "So Im free to go?", he said "no", I said "So Im under arrest", this time he said "yes". I told him that I did not consent to this arrest, and asked him if he had a warrant. He said no, and asked for my drivers license.

I handed him my notarized secured party declaration, a copy of the title to the truck, and my proof of insurance.

He went back to his car for about 5 minutes. A sergeant showed up and took over. I asked him if I was arrested and he said "no". I again said "So I can leave?" he said "no, you're detained". He started talking about arresting me and towing the truck and I asked under what authority. I told him I was on private property and I have not committed a crime. He agreed, but was playing tough guy.

He started asking me what was going on with my license, asked if I was ever licensed in California, and why the truck wasnt registered. I explained all of my info, we read through the case law and cvc together, and both officers admitted that they were fascinated by this. Turns out they were anti-obama, anti-health care, and 'tea partiers' (who knows what type) but either way we made a connection.

I repeated that I have conviction and respect for the Constitution, and that I understand the codes and definitions. I reminded the officers that ALL ROADS in the United States have been deemed "channels of Interstate commerce" by the Supreme Court, and because of that, local and State laws are trumped by Federal Laws, and that in the Federal Laws a "Motor Vehicle" was a "Commercial Vehicle"...we were waiting for almost 30 minutes while they waited for word from their supervisors.

Eventually, they hand me a citation with "none" marked in the DL location, and "none" in the License Plate location. I asked him if I was required to sign it, and he said "yes, otherwise we have to take you to jail." This now made the signature "under duress". I wrote "under duress" and signed my name next to the ticket.

This is where I was surprised, the Officer said "hey, we never read you your Miranda rights, so anything we use against you in court is not admissible."
Im not sure if this is true, but I was intrigued.

I have written "refused for fraud" across the original ticket, and sent it to the Court and the CHP with the letter below attached. I have done this in the past, and never heard another word, I had wondered if there were any warrants, apparently not!
*************************************

NOTICE and DEMAND

ATTN: Certified Mail 7009 2820 0003 2274 8185
California Highway Patrol Golden Gate Division
Officer B. Knudsen
DUBLIN (390)
4999 Gleason Road
Dublin, CA 94568-3310

CC: Certified Mail 7009 2820 0003 2274 8192
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, THE
Also Traded as ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
5672 Stoneridge Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588-8559

RE: CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
Violation Number: 60435 LJ

This notice to appear was signed UNDER DURESS as evidenced by the original citation in possession of, or submitted by Officer B. Knudsen.

Because this notice to appear was signed UNDER DURESS;
1) Statements made therein shall not be considered admissible evidence,
2) As a party to this action, I hereby void this contract and notice to appear, and
3) Any perceived consent or promise to appear is hereby withdrawn.

If you, or any Officer of the court or Officer of the CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL disagrees with the facts or statements stated above, you must refute those items point by point within 10 days of receipt of this Notice, via sworn affidavit, under your full commercial liability, signing under penalty of perjury that the facts contained therein are true, correct, complete and not misleading. Mere declarations are an insufficient response, as declarations permit lying by omission and hearsay, which no honorable draft may contain. If an extension of time is needed to properly answer, please request it in writing. Failure to respond will be deemed agreement with the facts stated above and an inability to prove your claim.

_____________________________________
Name, non resident, non licensed and non registered pursuant to CVC 4, 17459, 17460
See: Edwards v. California, 314 US 160 (1941), Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579., Hertado v. California, 110 US 516

(Enclosed) Copy of Notice to Appear

[TheCaliKid]

Trinity County Secured party patriots win one! (3:20)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFUNz5i8Jtk

^^ Watch this video.

No license? No plates? No registration? No problem!

She didn't engage the highwaymen in commerce. Pregnant woman let go by the CHP after they get OWNED by a Sovereign secured party patriot.

Watch at the end, the highwaymen's body language and behavior are priceless! They look like dazed and confused hunters who just let a 20-point buck waltz right past the barrel of their hunting rifle.

I watched this a few nights back and it totally made my night!

[Freeski]

How?

Because he lost in the end. $260 fine.

[foreverfree]

stuff like this is exactly why they are going to shut down the internet.  info like this can't be allowed to spread to the masses or the jig is up. 

[Freeski]

This sovereign/freeman stuff isn't about beating the system in its own bureaucracy: it's about the possibility that the whole thing from the town clerk up to the very top is globally orchestrated scam/trick in itself.

[TheCaliKid]

Because he lost in the end. $260 fine.

No, what I meant was: exactly how was he supposed to "close the proceedings."?

[Freeski]

No, what I meant was: exactly how was he supposed to "close the proceedings."?

His theory is/was that because the judge improperly abandoned the court room, that he could take over the role of the "authority" and thus dismiss his own case (or "contract").

[TheCaliKid]

His theory is/was that because the judge improperly abandoned the court room, that he could take over the role of the "authority" and thus dismiss his own case (or "contract").

Alright, I get that part, but what should / could he have done differently to "close the proceedings"?

[Freeski]

Alright, I get that part, but what should / could he have done differently to "close the proceedings"?

No idea, sorry. Ask me in another 5 years!

[Georgiacopguy]

Okay, i must have blinked the first time, but that was a bow, but i seriously doubt he was deferring to the guy, or showing any sort of respect. It may have been a formality of Canadian bench law. I stand corrected.

If there is ever a revolution though, we need a simplified judicial system, and to abolish all lawyers.

[decepticon]

Alright, I get that part, but what should / could he have done differently to "close the proceedings"?

no one knows, this sovereignty thing is highly experimental. from what i have read the sovereign should have held the court until the judge returned. the judge would have to leave the court 2-3 times during the proceedings to potentially be considered an abandonment. a call for recess is not an abandonment.

btw to whoever said up there that this guys mistake was showing up in the first place, you are wrong. he didn't show up when he was re-summoned and he was hit with a fine. not showing up isn't the way to beat it, if in fact it is possible to beat the matrix within the matrix.

[Freeski]

If there is ever a revolution though, we need a simplified judicial system, and to abolish all lawyers.

That's got my vote!

[carlee]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_y-gLm9Hrw&NR=1

[TheCaliKid]

If there is ever a revolution though, we need a simplified judicial system, and to abolish all lawyers.

What we need is:


1. Common Law courts


- and -


2. A restitution-based justice system

[TheCaliKid]

no one knows, this sovereignty thing is highly experimental. from what i have read the sovereign should have held the court until the judge returned. the judge would have to leave the court 2-3 times during the proceedings to potentially be considered an abandonment. a call for recess is not an abandonment.

btw to whoever said up there that this guys mistake was showing up in the first place, you are wrong. he didn't show up when he was re-summoned and he was hit with a fine. not showing up isn't the way to beat it, if in fact it is possible to beat the matrix within the matrix.

you must refute those items point by point within 10 days of receipt of this Notice, via sworn affidavit, under your full commercial liability, signing under penalty of perjury that the facts contained therein are true, correct, complete and not misleading. Mere declarations are an insufficient response, as declarations permit lying by omission and hearsay, which no honorable draft may contain. If an extension of time is needed to properly answer, please request it in writing. Failure to respond will be deemed agreement with the facts stated above and an inability to prove your claim.

^ It can work, has worked.

[s3d1t0r]

...If there is ever a revolution though, we need a simplified judicial system, and to abolish all lawyers.

Read about the original 13th Amendment, which precipitated the war of 1812 some would say.

[decepticon]

Read about the original 13th Amendment, which precipitated the war of 1812 some would say.

yes here is truly where the rubber meets the road. we take america for granted sometimes. understand that tptb are warlords. if you actually are able to overthrow them within their american branch, make no mistake we will be at war with the rest of the empire. and not an info war where we sit in the comfort of our couch and do fun fact finding. this would be a literal war where people are dropping literal bombs on you and your family from the comforts of their own couches. and keep in mind they have already raped america of its natural resource wealth, so we would be literally starting from scratch.

who can make war with the beast ?

[Freeski]

What we need is:


1. Common Law courts


- and -


2. A restitution-based justice system

Don't we still technically have common law courts, seeing that stuff remains until lawfully/constitutionally revoked? I saw "we" as common law jurisdictions.

There's a key clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms that seems to say just that:

Section 26
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html#anchorbo-ga:l_I-gb:s_2

Other rights and freedoms not affected by Charter
26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.