Through the Eyes of the Pirates: Simplifying Knowledge of Law, Court from the Perspective of the Pirates of the Private Bar Guild

_________________________________________________________________________________
Please download MP3 Audio Broadcast of this Blog > here   (56 min 21.5 Mb)
_________________________________________________________________________________

Thanks for listening and the topic for this audio and blog this week is through the eyes of the pirates, simplifying knowledge of law and courts from the perspective of the pirates of the private Bar Guild who run it.  I was going to do the blog and audio this week on sharing with you some extraordinary information regarding the Tree of Life and the origin of that knowledge in relation to Egypt.   

But, I do perceive that from feedback from a number of you as to your most recent experiences in the courts and in particular the continued obstruction, incompetence, stupidity, criminality that so many of you report back that continues in the corporate courts of the private bar guilds around the world.   Even with the knowledge and even with approaching them with respect, approaching them with humility and seeking some form of settlement and resolution.  

Many of you have experienced and continue to experience this kind of extraordinarily awful behavior by magistrates, clerks, prosecutors and by judges as private contractors of the private bar guilds.  These people still refuse to show any form of basic competence, basic intellect any form of good faith, any form of honoring their own procedures let alone their own laws.  I felt it of the utmost importance that we do this recording and audio and blog today so that we might go through those things that we know are certain so that we may best address as best we can how to handle such situation when you are faced with overwhelming corruption, incompetence, bullying and ignorance.   We are going through that and do so in a practical way to look as we have with trusts and estates.  Some of the subjects we are raising tonight are subjects that have been raised in great detail in the past such as person.  Tonight I want to go through in a logical, step by step fashion that these key concepts may be finally comprehended.  When we are faced with such obstruction then we won’t lose our ‘cool’, sense and hope and we have some idea of how we may respond and how we may continue to handle ourselves.   

Before we get into the first component of this topic of “Through the Eyes of the Pirates”, looking at the legal system from their perspective and to be in their shoes and consider what they know or do not know.  Let’s begin with a common sense and important opening consideration before we get into any form of detail regarding courts and members of the private bar.   Is the present legal system in western countries now run by openly corporate structures, now run openly to make money, in complete and total contradiction to every single maxim of law that has ever existed in regards to clean hands, justice, and fairness?  Is this system broken?  Absolutely.  Absolutely, this system is broken.

This system is corrupt, this system is unfair, and it is prejudicial and refusing to follow its own rules.  This is a fact and this is not presumption.  This is not supposition or accusation; this is absolute fact that on a day to day basis the level of stupidity, idiocy, and lunacy of clerks, prosecutors, magistrates and judges is extraordinary.  They are wholly incompetent and wholly unsuited to administer law in any system.   That is the starting point.  Given that we are saying we are looking through the eyes of pirates, then how may we find any form of relief at all in the private courts?  Given this is the reality of the situation, one should in no way feel that any guarantee, promise, assurance given by anybody that one remedy fits all, one size fits all and one answer can be guaranteed.  Anyone who claims that to you is not telling the truth.   All we can do when faced with such tyranny is to expose it for what it is, to stand up and truly represent the law for what it is and to minimize any injury on our part to the law and to make clear on the record that they openly broke their laws, there was clearly no justice and that they are criminals without question. 

To do that and to expose them for that, to seek what relief may possibly be there, we need to sort out what we know, what they know and be clear on what is simply ignorance and stupidity on their part and we need to bring things back to the most clear and concise knowledge as to what goes on in the courts that we do not find ourselves running around in circles.  The first thing we need to consider is the danger of over thinking and presumptions.  Some have said over time and they may well be right in certain circumstances that the amount of information that one can read on the website of one-heaven.org is overwhelming and that when one reads the canons of law even the canons of positive law, there is an overwhelming amount of information located on the website that for many just reading let alone comprehending seems to be an insurmountable task.  I am genuinely sorry that the knowledge and the amount of knowledge is so confronting.   What the canons are there to do is to give us a source, give us a base, a direction, a level of certainty as to what the basic principles of law are, all law and not just western, commercial, ecclesiastical, eastern, ancient law, but all law.

While we present that information there is the risk of over thinking and making presumptions as to what is or is not occurring in the court environment?  This over-guessing  and over-presumption can sometimes be so strong we find ourselves making simple errors because we over-complicate what is otherwise a fairly transparent system of making money by the private bar guild.  For example, many continue to make the fundamental mistake of presenting private documents whether they are documents created through Ucadia or whether they are documents created by someone else or documents that you yourself have made.  Private in a sense, documents do not conform to one of the standard forms of the particular court with which you are dealing.  These simple mistakes can include such things as applying one form of affidavit for example that may be relevant in one state in the United States, England or Canada to another jurisdiction where the format of affidavits is different. 

So, at one extreme we may be including documents that are wholly of a foreign nature to their system, or we may be preparing documents that are familiar in name but do not conform to the standards that they prescribe in your area.   They are simple and common mistakes and they are the kind of mistakes that are causing people to get in all kinds of trouble and weaken their position before we get to the substance of the matters at hand. I have said it before and I say it again:  as a basic principle of competence when you go to one of the private bar guild courts they have prescribed for themselves the look, feel and style of what are accepted as the formats, forms that one may or may not use.  If you wish to engage in responding to the court then you must use those forms.  If you do not and you engage with the court then they have every right to reject your form, and worse they will use your inability to follow basic procedure against you.  You will dig a hole and they will say that through your use of private forms that this is gobbledy-gook, irrelevant and you are an idiot and incompetent.   You are a ward and you will have handed them exactly what they need to run over you.

Please don’t make it easier for injustice through sheer ignorance or bloody mindedness or whatever causes you to ignore the first point I have made tonight.  I am not agreeing with their forms, agreeing with the private bar guild and I am not saying what they do is right.  You know I am not.  I am simply presenting a position of basic common sense.  If you are in Australia then each state has a different format of forms as does each bar society.  So what works in New South Wales may not work in Victoria.  The same is in the United States; what works in Montana may not work in California.  In Canada what works in one place may not work in another.  Wherever the matter is being raised, you must use their forms.  You must use their forms if you wish to engage.  That is the first issue.    

The second is the concept of the danger of too much knowledge.  We covered over thinking but the danger of becoming bogged down in all the levels and layers of malfeasance that occurs within the court process. This is where we have been stepping outside of the view of looking through the eyes of the pirates and unfortunately we have been focusing on our knowledge which in many cases now, I would suggest, far exceeds the comprehension and competence of your average magistrate and your average judge.   They just know their own rules any more.  But there are some basic principles that they know they must follow.   We will talk about those as a way of seeing what is taking place through their eyes.  

We know about the estates that are formed at the time of the birth and that these estates are connected to the concept of a temporary testamentary trust or a Cestui Que Vie (CQV).  We know that.  But that doesn’t mean that a magistrate or that judge know how that system works.   So to raise that information may be irrelevant to them.  We know because of the temporary testamentary trusts and we know in the form of our own position as trustor and grantor and as general executor of our own affairs and our own estate that we have the absolute right to take control of our own affairs and to appoint our own principal.  I would suggest to you that this information is beyond the comprehension of most lawyers, judges, and magistrates.  This is not arrogance and I am not here to ‘pooh-pooh’ every member of the private bar guild.   I am not saying that.  In previous calls I have said and I reiterate this, that I believe the vast majority of people that choose to pursue a life of service in law do so out of a higher ideal in the first instance.   It is only later that they are ensnared into the status quo of the system.

Your knowledge of the power of the Will and Testament, your knowledge of estates and of the role of the apostolic mendicant minister that we have discussed in previous audios in previous weeks, I would suggest this is well beyond the comprehension of most courts and clerk.  So not only is there the error of using private documents rather than their forms, but there is also the error of introducing knowledge, however accurate into a court environment where these people have no idea whatsoever even though this is the foundation of western law and common law which are the principles of the laws of estates, of companies and corporations.

This is where we fall into the danger of applying too much knowledge when we encounter these situations and where we run the risk of being some kind of a smart ass rather than approaching humbly. I know there are people who say that when they go to court it is all about being adversarial.  It is not about being adversarial and putting people offsite, but about finding resolution.  Court is not a sport; it may be for them.  Nothing we have discussed or do is about promoting an attitude of similar irreverence to the law in treating matters of great seriousness as some kind of perverted sport.   We are talking about finding any form of relief, sensible resolution.  When we go to court we need to be clear on those things that are within the purview and within the scope and level of competence of a magistrate, prosecutor, clerk, judge and bailiff. 

What are the steps that we know with absolute certainty that they are viewing to do?   What are the steps of absolute fundamental importance that we need to consider, given the broken system and broken conditions that we are dealing with.  Let’s begin from their perspective first. 

The courts are absolutely corporate and commercial whether it is a criminal or civil matter.  We know this for certainty because so many jurisdictions now openly record the courts as businesses and admit that their judges and magistrates are debt collectors and independent contractors that have advanced purchased the debt or the claim to make money.  In their situation we know that administrative law is what is claimed and in reality it is commercial law.  It is the monetization of a claim into a security and the sale and underwriting of that security or those securities. 

What are the steps that they go through?   The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) hiding behind the pretext of administrative law we know is the driving force in commercializing claims by the corporation   before we move forward on the exact steps they do we can say with certainty that a senior enough level in their system, we know the system recognizes that there is a limit to the jurisdiction of the corporation even if the magistrate, judge, prosecutor shows an absence of intelligence on the issue.  By that I mean the following:  a property may be placed in trust as the highest form of jurisdiction.  An estate may then be derived from the value of the trust and rights enfranchised from that.  And then a franchisee in having purchased or assigned a right then may trade off that right from the estate as a corporation or, if granted by charter, right or statute as a company.

So, a corporation is technically, legally morally, sensibly at the bottom of the tree.  A corporation can never be higher than the estate from which it was formed.   An estate can never be greater than the trust from which it is derived.   The first thing that the courts need to do to make money is to establish a legal person against which the claim and the charges will then be assigned.  In the forming of the legal person this is when the court also creates the trust.  Now we have gone through ‘person’ many times and we will go through it again because of its importance.

I am referring to www.one-heaven.org  and the canons of positive law, article 17 which refers to the definition of person.  When you look at canon 1501 as to the components and the minimum 9 elements that make up a valid person, author, script, actor, relation, binding, part, actions, record and title they are all components associated with trusts and components associated with estates.  So when a valid legal person is formed a valid trust is formed where actors in the court and actors in their system can participate in certain areas and elements. 

The first thing that their courts need to do and must do before moving forward is to establish a brand new legal person for that case which is a brand new trust for that case.  If they do not firmly and clearly establish a new legal person for that case, the new trust for that case, then they cannot assign the charges that are alleged and they certainly cannot move forward. 

What is a legal person?   As we have said before, all administrative law or public statutes or court rules and procedures depend and rest upon the presence of a legal person known as a statutory person or a surrogate person.  A legal person is in effect a third person and based on the components of what makes a person, what makes a legal person effective for them is that the author or the principal is hidden or not known.  When the author or principal is hidden or not known then under their own rules they can assume that role, they can assume and direct that part of the person.  

They can talk about that person as a “he”, “she”, “it”, “they”, “them,” or “theirs,” “themselves” as a thing.   Why is this important?  Because the format of a court process as we have explained in the past remains in effect the sacrament of penance, the format of court in essence still remains a sacrament, a confession.  Are they given freely or borne out by deduction?  A penitent or a recalcitrant, the court will function either way.   In that role the pro-se-cutus literally meaning “in our own skin” is able to bring matters as if we are confessing. 

What we are witnessing in a court ordinarily then whether we realize it or not are that the judge or magistrate and the prosecutor fulfilling parts of the person that also has our same name.  so what we want to make clear whenever we go to court in this, if we have someone who is capable and has been properly appointed into the role of a legal agent or attorney-in-fact that they may insure that they can represent us without depreciating our rights, in the second person in the role of the artificial person, the principal and the agent.

For most of us, unfortunately, the reality is that it is very difficult to find people who have the time, the ability and the inclination to at this point represent us as an agent and so we are left to defend ourselves in the role of the first person, the “propria persona” which is the “I”, “thou”, “me”, “my”, “mine” “myself”, “we”, “us,” or “ourselves”.  Another failure that we have is that we are easily tricked that “propria persona” is the same “pro se.”  “Pro se” is not the same as “propria persona”.  Prose in their system is shorthand for personal jurisdiction.  If we agree to stand prose we are agreeing to be a legal person.   We agree to that. 

So why is it so important not to agree that we are a legal person?  In most magistrate and local courts the answer is that under their system of summary jurisdiction, under that system since the 19^th century, once the role of a legal person has been formed and established then the court is able is able to establish very quickly the parens patriae and that the person formed is a person of infant, a ward.  Then they have the ability to treat us as a ward and ram through the charges and then the sentence.   This is why in courts of summary jurisdiction you can watch incredibly one case after another, just ‘bang”, “bang”, “bang.”  Are you such as such (JOHN DOE)?  Yes?  How do you plead?  This is the sentence, so move on, and claiming all this to be perfectly lawful. 

Once the legal person was established the presumption is that person is a ward, they are the parens patriae and the charges are read out.  You are guilty of the charges, this is the penalty, and this is the underwriting, thanks very much.   Thanks for coming.   When we do go to court on our own we really have only one choice, one choice only, if we view it through the eyes of the pirates.  That is to insure in no uncertain terms the person before them is a person “in propria persona” and not in any fashion a legal person.  We do not consent for a legal person to be created without our permission, without our consent. 

How do these courts circumvent that?   Very easily, as they do it on the assumption if you have turned in, you have agreed to the jurisdiction and if you speak up they will shut you down.   How do you obviate that?  How do you overcome that?  You do that through the role of the affidavit.   A competent man or woman produces an affidavit and submits it before the hearing and does so “in propria persona” and state clearly their name, role, their competence, coming in good faith and clearly stating the facts that are known at that time.  

When an affidavit is prepared in the form prescribed by that jurisdiction and entered in to the record before the matter, it is virtually impossible for a magistrate to then force the presumption of you being a legal person.  Now, if you are not a legal person they cannot automatically assign the charges to you.   They cannot rush those charges to you.  They can only do that through your consent.  So the court and the attitude of the court changes dramatically because it has to.   It has to rely then on all the principles of law and no longer their sausage machine system of law.

This is not perverting the cause of justice.   This is not saying how to run away from things that we must face.  Nor are we describing the innocence or guilt culpability that we may or may not have in a matter.   We are simply stating the single most important step that a court, even a district court must do at the get-go to establish a legal person first and to fight against any form of principal/agent role and definitely to fight against any role of “propria persona,” or first person as described in canon 1503 of positive law. 

As I said, if you have prepared and recorded an affidavit and it is in the proper form then all the prosecutor and court can do lawfully is to challenge parts of your affidavit that is defective.  If your affidavit is not defective, then they have no right whatsoever to deny it as prima facie evidence.  If that prima facie evidence proves your assertion that you are coming by special appearance “in propria persona” to settle and close the matter, then for them to get the charges against the propria persona or a derivative thereof must be by your consent. 

Remember, we are dealing with corporations masquerading as state courts, as estate courts.  So, when it comes to charges think about going to a restaurant, the car repair, or home repairs you might have done.  Do you pay a contract to money simply on the claim?  I think that will be a few thousand dollars to fix that window.  Or, do you wait to see the bill and the evidence that goes with the bill as to the consideration, performance, good faith, and all the elements before you accept the amount presented for payment.

The court is envisaged by the founding fathers of the United States and court as described by William Blackstone in fundamentals of English law, made it clear that no court can proceed without a true bill.   No court can proceed without a true accounting of the underlying claims as to the particular charges.  So, if there is no bill and only claims, if there is no evidence presented from the get-go, and then you have every right to decline the charges.

“I cannot accept charges until I see the evidence of the bill.  I cannot accept charges as just evidence of the claims against the bill.  Without that evidence I respectfully request that this matter be discharged with extreme prejudice immediately.”  They have nowhere to go. 

Here’s part of the ‘bait’ and ‘merest trick’ that the 19^th century laws on summary jurisdiction: when the charges are accepted in being attached to the person in their world, presumably the legal person, then the matter is virtually over.  Once the charges are accepted within the commercial form, then the debt is owed.  Initially the debt is absorbed and accepted by the contractor, the one who picked up the contract to settle the claim, who is the judge or magistrate.  They are the ones holding the liability initially until the end of the matter where they “flick it” to the surety to settle it. 

So all the arguments of proving beyond reasonable doubt, hearing all the evidence and so forth after the charges are accepted, under the system of summary jurisdiction from the 19^th century is really if you think about it, just window dressing.   The key is the acceptance of the charges as legitimate with or without a bill, with or without the evidence.  That is the bait and switch and the trick that they do to us. 

Summary jurisdiction has nothing to do with common law, or law in general.  The concepts are so wholly in contradiction to justice and maxims and principles that it cannot possibly be argued as law.   It is a commercial contract, an agreement that we enter into, to see a matter resolved.  Once they feel they have firmly established a legal person, once the charges have been connected and assigned to the legal person that is it.   In almost every case that is all they need to ram through. 

So, how do we deal with them?  Well, if we have perfected and affidavit and presented an affidavit prior to going to court and we are there by special attendance and we will attend by propria persona in the first person, then when we get there we have the legitimate question to reiterate and we could do this in the affidavit by saying that we will only accept charges while we are here to settle the matter and that we will only accept the charges that are legitimate if they accompanied by a bill and the evidence to back up the charges in the first instance which was the original form of how the law worked before the McDonald’s version of fast speed ‘”5-minute” cases which is what most people suffer.

So long as we defend our knowledge and our competence of actually what the first person is and why we can hold that role, “in propria persona”, so long as we don’t get bullied into believing that we have to act in the role of the legal person, there are many ways to argue.  “I need a legal person.”  “I am the natural person, the first person from which all persons are derived.”  So we are at an impasse.  The court needs a legal person and I am not going to accept charges as legitimate until a proper bill and evidence as to what justifies those charges.  If that evidence is not here today, then these charges are unfounded and I respectfully request the matter to be discharged, dismissed with extreme prejudice. 

Once the legal person is in place and once those charges have been slipped across then really the game is over.  The system is in place and they will duck and weave on establishing the person.  They know that they cannot force the charges forward unless they have a legal person. Once they have a legal person they force those charges forward and they ignore the fact that there is no bill, nor is there the usual attendant evidence to support what the charges are.  

I know that the information that we discuss with Ucadia is vast.   I know that over time when you listen to the audios and read the blogs regarding Ucadia it sometimes appears that we contradict ourselves.  In fact we contradict ourselves far less than it might appear.   What we do and what I try to do is always be honest to the situation and the circumstances in what people are calling out the most. 

Right now many are still struggling with the basic concepts of the role of the agent in second person, the importance of legal person to the existing corporate system and our right and our ability to stand as a ‘natural person’ and “in propria persona” in the first person.  All the disinformation and conflict out there regarding “don’t go to court” or some people still maintain that person is bad, confuses, obstructs and causes doubt and cause us to make those fundamental mistakes that we spoke about by using our own private documents, in being rude or arrogant, appearing to be a “smart-ass.”

Through the eyes of the pirates the process is really pretty straight forward.   Establish the legal person, jurisdiction, get those charges on the legal person and then work out who is going to pay.  99% of the time it will be the defendant who pays as the one who goes surety.   These people are not rocket scientists or geniuses.  They are certainly far from the level of competence of judges and magistrates of previous times and are not nearly the caliber of those judges and magistrate of previous times.  We need to take stock and it’s easy to shift the blame and sometimes it’s easy to shift the blame to Ucadia and this knowledge, saying ‘Look this it too much (information), it’s not clear, it’s confusing.

What we are saying that we alone are ultimately responsible for our own lives.  We have to be.  That is the very nature of being a competent adult.  If we refuse to be responsible for our lives then we are admitting that we are wards.   We are admitting that we are incapable of managing our affairs.   So why would we be treated seriously?  Of course we are not capable of managing our affairs.   That is exactly why the magistrate courts are so paranoid about those that produce an affidavit “in propria persona” and stand competently in first person.

Why?  Because you prove the lie that you are a ward.  You are proving by your very acts and behavior that the court cannot trick you into being a ward.  If the magistrate’s court cannot get you into being a ward, then they have to convince you by your consent to their jurisdiction.  Again, “I am happy to settle the matter if you can bring forth to me, please, the bill and the attendant documentary evidence of any claimed charges.  Then I am happy to settle the matter, but I do not see that.  Because I don’t see and if you keep calling me back, you are wasting my time and you are being vexatious and then I request this matter be immediately dismissed, discharged with extreme prejudice.” 

That is your right.  They say that they cannot?  Of course you can’t. There are no charges against a person because no person has been established for this matter.   You might be upset as the magistrate/private contractor that you cannot make money but there is no good reason.  The prosecutor who you, Mr. Magistrate, bought this from, the prosecutor and his office?  They will be up for the lesser expense that you picked up and of course you can dismiss the matter with extreme prejudice. 

If they bring forward a bill and the evidence, then fair enough.  Now let’s settle the matter.  If you are responsible and if you are any part, then you need to very carefully consider how you conduct yourself.  So, there is the danger of over thinking, presumption, too much knowledge.  It is fantastic that we have enormous knowledge now far and above many of their own people.  But let’s bring it back to those basic steps that we know they have to follow to get through.  Maybe for many of us, the fact that they as corporations, the fact that the magistrates are private contractors and are unable to force through at that stage, the fact is they have to reassess their behavior.

These trivial and cruel and malevolent, corrupt action they are pursing against people have to be ended.  We need law and order and we need justice and to hold ourselves to account through our errors and our wrongs.  But most importantly those who deliberately and willingly pervert the course of justice must be brought to account.  This system of perversion and monetizing and making money from the law, this abomination must end. 

Thank you. Thank you for all your help and support. I hope you find this information useful and I look forward to answering your questions when we get together on the Q and A on Wednesday on talkshoe at 9PM EST.  Thank you again.