Restoring Law through the Parables of Truth

_________________________________________________________________________________
Please download MP3 Audio Broadcast of this Blog > here   (45 min 15 Mb)
_________________________________________________________________________________

The topic for this week based on feedback I received from many of you (and thank you for that), is “restoring the law through the parables of truth”.  The reason that I have chosen the theme of restoring the law through the parables of truth is that we have been speaking about how the courts as corporate businesses function, how we conduct ourselves in court, how it is imperative that we change our attitude and perspective in going to court in not being belligerent or aggressive. 

When we are belligerent or aggressive that puts us under their admiralty rules.  When we go in a position of honor and we are clear then the simplest of questions are the most powerful:  “Will you be hearing the matter today in good faith and without prejudice your honor?”  This is an essential question of justice.  It is a question that if it is answered in the positive, it gives us the right then to follow up and ask, “Do I have your oath on that, your honor?”

If the judge or magistrate answers yes to those two questions these most simple and basic questions allow us to pull back the veil as to whether we are standing in a true court of law or merely a star chamber, a torture chamber as a place to reap and sow great pain and misery. 

This is based on learning at least some key points about law; it is based on comprehending some of the essential principles of property and rights.  But for all that we have spoken about for months and years, what I have tried to do in the last few weeks is as honestly, truthfully and transparently that I can to present to those that have the time read, are willing to listen, have eyes to see and ears to hear the answer which is ultimately very, very simple.  

I do appreciate, I really am genuinely thankful when I receive feedback from some of you that you do find this information useful and helpful.  I also appreciate the feedback when people come and say, “You know what?  Even though I see the simplicity of what you are saying, even though I see the power of a properly formed affidavit, I find that when I talk with friends and colleagues of mine and with others I know, they just don’t get it and it is just not coming through.  It’s as if what you spoke about some weeks ago, this fog and this spiritual veil is preventing people from seeing it.”     

How do we cut through the fog?

You know what?  I think there is a lot of truth in that.  No matter how simply we present the cure, no matter how clearly we outline the steps, for whatever reason there remains a confusion, a frustration, an obstinance to people getting what is being said.  Now whether it is because people are beguiled by people promoting false information, whether it is that they are just simply ignoring the seriousness of the matters that they face, whether it is that are just melting under the pressure and enormous weight that we find ourselves in these uncertain times.   It could be all of those things.  Or, whether it is as we said a few weeks ago this spiritual interference, this fog that is deliberately trying to keep us divided, that is trying absolutely and desperately to keep us from restoring a sense of knowing who and what we are.  It could be all of those things. 

But, the feedback I got from last week that gave me probably the greatest hope was when some of you said, “You know what?  When you read out that parable on the prodigal son, when you showed us the original story, not the corrupted story that spends half its time speaking of the jealous brother that has never done anything wrong, when you give us the original parable of truth from Tara, that cuts through.  We got that.  It resonated with us and it made sense.  It gave meaning.”  That is why tonight we have the topic, Restoring Law Through the Parables of Truth.  

If you look at where we are to today and there are great problems, great concern and breakdown in basic trust and morality at so many levels now that these words are surrendered to most people’s minds.  If you had read any history and in fact if you have gone and seen a film, Conan the Barbarian (not a particularly good film, but there are many, many films then you would know as such examples of historic anarchy), that this is not the first time that society as whole, nations in particular, communities, families have found themselves at a threshold of fighting back to establish some kind of personal responsibility.  Societies have come and gone and civilizations have risen and fallen.  This is not the first time that we have faced crises of morality, the first time that in once sense that it’s a crises brought about from a false philosophy, the philosophy we have spoken about called nihilism. 

There is the philosophy we speak about on the home page of www.one-evil.org where is there is utter madness of nihilism and its lies that is more than 150 years old that speaks in the language of the  “jabberwocky,” of Lewis Carroll and the Mad Hatter.   It’s the language that says black is white, white is black, big is small and small is big and confusing us.  And justifying that it is the only philosophy there is that morality is irrelevant, morality is something that we can make up.  It’s a tool and a construct they say and the only truth is mind, but we don’t know what mind is.  But we still have an entire system that seeks to police mind, called psychology.  We don’t know what mind is, but we do know that we can create whatever we like and none of it is real.  That, clearly, is a recipe for madness.  So it shouldn’t be surprising that we live in a world where this insanity is so prevalent that is unique to this time.  As far as losing our way, trying to find out what is real; this is not the first time this has happened.  

The Power of the True Parable

So how did people, how did teachers, how did communities find their way through when things were so bad 100, 500, 1000, 2000, 2500 years ago?  The answer is what we call the parable, the very, very short story, and the words that give flesh to the proverb, to the maxim of life, to the reason.  To the nihilists the parable is an anachronism; it is their kryptonite.   Therefore it is the thing that they have spent quite a bit of time on, even before we saw them as nihilists who were corrupting.  If you can show wisdom with brevity, if you can show context in a way that cuts through the fog, then you have the most threatening weapon to this pervasive madness.  That is what parables were. 

When I read the parable last week I gave you link.  Go look at www.one-heaven.org and when you get there look at the "sacred texts" which is one of the links on the primary navigation and from the primary navigation (tool bar) you should be able to go to the bottom of the page and see the list of sacred texts.  When you look at the sacred texts one of them that you will see is called Tara.  Before we get into some examples of how powerful this wisdom is, how it may help us find clarity and how it may help us punch through all those obstacles and that fog with people that we have been speaking about.  What is Tara? 

Tara is the original law form created by the prophet Jeremiah when he traveled to Ireland and was faced with an opportunity to help kick-start and heal a society that had lost its way so much that people no longer knew who and what they were and where they came from.  Society had degraded to a situation worse than Conan the Barbarian.  Jeremiah was a priest of the Yei-Hu (Yahu or Yahuvah) of Egypt.  If you want to see the kind of knowledge that Jeremiah possessed go to the www.one-evil.org and look at the article on the Tree of Life.  Not only will you see the list of prophets which includes Jeremiah, but you will also see the knowledge of the Tree of Life and the knowledge of deep, deep spirituality that these priests had.  

One of the tools these priests had was parables.  So Jeremiah came with a series of parables and these parables weren’t the kinds of parables that we see in the bible, where in the example of the prodigal son half the parable was about the jealousy of the son that seemed out of balance.  Or there was the parable that shepherd that abandons 99 good sheep to chase down the one bad sheep.  It’s great for the bad sheep, but what about the good sheep that were left in danger?  It doesn’t make any sense and it doesn’t add up. 

The parables were clear.  There were not confusing, they were not “jabberwocky.”  They weren’t promoting black is white, white is black, good is bad, bad is good. They were very clear and the wisdom was very, very clear.  The power of these parables and the strength of these parables were that when taught orally, they formed the foundation of what we came to know as the Celtic Empire, the many, many kingdoms of Celts that spread throughout Europe, across to Asia and even to the Americas. 

What do these parables and what can these parables do to help us in light of the problems that we face in the world today?   Well, many things, but if we start with one example they can help us keep a perspective on life, a touchstone on moral principles and a reminder of what matters.  For example, when we face great difficulty, when we are faced with great challenges, when times turn around, sometimes we forget what it was like when we were in strife.  Keeping a perspective on life and a perspective on these morals is important.

Let’s start with an example and this particular parable under Tara on the website www.one-evilsheaven.org under sacred texts and look at Tara and then look under the heading of 32-Justice. When you get to the heading of Justice under the Eacturas you will find the parable of The Philosopher, the Ants and the Viper:

Parable of the Philosopher, the Ants and the Viper

1. A Philosopher standing upon a shoreline, observed the recent wreckage of a vessel.
2. As he stood and counted the bodies and observed the crabs and carrion,
3. He reflected thus: Oh providence! What heavy hand of justice that for the sake of one night and one voyage,
4. You would condemn so many innocent souls to the Otherworld,
5. You would condemn so many innocent souls to the Otherworld.
6. For below his feet he had been standing on an Ant nest causing them great consternation.
7. The Philosopher immediately set about not only killing the Ant that offended him,
8. But stomping fiercely upon the nest until all the Ants were dead.
9. When he had finished and did survey his handiwork, a fierce pain gripped his leg as a viper struck.
10. At that moment, he felt a sting on his leg from an Ant defending his nest.
11. Thus, by your actions I had no choice.
12. The Philosopher gripping his leg and the mortal wound did reply thus: I forgive you Viper.
13. For but a moment I insulted heaven and judged as if a terrible god
14. And in judging heaven unfairly, I did condemn myself to be judged.

That is the parable of The Philosopher, the Ants and the Viper. There are many proverbs built within just one parable.  You might have seen some of them as I read them out:  “Judge not lest you be judged.”  There are many parables you can view at how life and providence directs us to see perspective. The reason I read this particular parable out first is that I believe that it is a reminding portent to us as to how we often dig ourselves into a deeper hole.  For example: someone might face a parking fine, or someone might have a problem with their home.  By not thinking in this case the analogy is about the philosopher who is someone who has presumably thought about the world, thought about where he is and where he fits.  You may not see yourself as that, and that is fine.  But we have all been educated at some level.  If you are listening to this then presumably you have a computer and some means of access and writing.  You can read and write. 

Sometimes we forget what we have learned and instead we judge and react harshly to the circumstance and in doing so we force others to act in a reflexive way to protect themselves.   I can’t tell you how many times I have heard of people that have gone to prison because they made the action manifestly worse by attacking judges, prosecutors,     members of the department of justice, whether or not there was a basis of truth.  And, they went to prisons whether or not there was some incompetence, some malfeasance, some out and out fraud.  We have said, of course, that the system is fraudulent in so many ways.   But, beware the pursuit of vengeance, the phyrric signs of vengeance because it ends up hurting everybody. The system will react like a viper. 

This was an example of a question I answered last week when we spoke about bankruptcy and I made the point that you don’t have to go to a corporate business as a sole point of administering yourself or having your estate administered out of bankruptcy.  If you have done your Will and Testament, if you have followed your learning, if you have read and listened to these blogs, then you would be aware of managing your estate, how to appoint an agent.  It’s all there in the blogs and we spoke about it months ago.  We gave the links of where to go to see the documents.   Then you would be able to appoint an administrator and form a trust very simply and allow that agent, as the fiduciary and trustee of that temporary trust, to administer the estate out of this position.  Instead we react, we judge, and we judge harshly and sometimes that causes things to become much, much worse.  That is the parable of the The Philosopher, the Ants and the Viper.

There are many proverbs within it and maybe on reflection of it you may find many more proverbs relevant to your life.  The point in sharing that story is that it is an example that when wisdom and truth is presented in a certain way, it may well cut through the fog, the engine grease, and resonate with us more than sometimes someone listing a whole list of facts, figures and acts of Parliament, statutes and so on.  There is one example.

Another lesson that you might find when you go through and read these parables is the lesson of the price of running away from our fears.  As much as people don’t wish to admit it, one of the most common reasons that people don’t address problems, debts, conflict, is that people are naturally attuned to avoid pain, suffering and as a consequence we will pretend it doesn’t exist, we will leave it until the last moment or we will run away from it.  One of the lessons of life is that no matter how far we run, how much we hide, issues tend to come back and ‘bite’ us if we don’t face them head on.  Here is another example of a parable that might help us cut through and see why it is so important that not only to not judge things harshly and make things manifestly worse, but it is so important that we get our affairs in order, that we do the reading, and that we listen to what has already been presented.  

This parable is also under Tara at www.one-heaven.org and is under 20-Courage. It is called The Wealthy Merchant and the Painted Lion.

Parable of the Wealthy Merchant and the Painted Lion

1. A Wealthy Merchant, whose only son was fond of hunting, had a fearful dream,
2. In which he envisaged his son would be killed terribly by a lion.
3. Fearful the dream be an omen, he forbid his son any further adventures.
4. Instead, he built him a beautiful high walled garden,
5. Full of great life sized sculptures of animals and murals including a painting of a lion.
6. One day in front of the painted lion in a fit of frustration,
7. The son did speak: O you most detestable of animals!
8. Upon your account within the false visions of my father,
9. I am condemned to this palace as if a virgin princess.
10. With these words he stretched out his hands toward a thorn-tree,
11. Meaning to cut a stick from its branches so that he might deface the image.
12. But one of the tree's prickles pierced his finger and caused great pain and inflammation,
13. So that within a few days the son died from a violent and terrible fever.
14. Upon returning from business the Wealthy Merchant grieved:
15. Curse thee fear and cowardice. For you did conspire to manifest the very destiny I sought to delay.
16. Better then my son had died in honor, than a prisoner of my own making.

There you have it the parable, the story of The Wealthy Merchant and the Painted Lion about how often life will manifest and fulfill itself to our greatest of fears when it would have been better if we had faced those fears head-on and dealt with the issue.  Of course that is easy to say and it’s easy to say when you are not facing terrible fears, but when you are facing terrible challenges it’s something different.  I can’t imagine what it would have been like for those brave men who fought in WWI in the most horrendous of conditions.  Being born in Australia, Australia has a legacy of losing some its brightest and finest in battle.   These were men that stood up and jumped over the trenches straight into the German machine guns, where almost no one survived.  

One of the unanswered miracles of my ancestors is my grandfather who was also named Frank O’Collins, who I never met, who died before I was born.   He was a man who enlisted as so many did in Australia at the beginning of World War I.  He was a man that while he did not go to Gallipoli, he went to France and in France he saw first hand and was involved in battle and was promoted in the field 7 times from private, right up to major, ending the war as a British major.  He was constantly in battle with people dying all around him.  He was not awarded some great award, nor did he shy from death but what would I have done if I was in that situation?  Could I have done that?  

Now with the knowledge that life is a dream, the dream has rules, with the knowledge of the meaning of Ucadia, knowledge of the meaning that our minds are immortal and it’s only our bodies that die and like the driver of a vehicle, we can always have another vehicle, but the key is to remember and not simply repeat lifetime after lifetime after lifetime, the same mistake over and over and over again.  The key is to wake up in this lifetime and face our problems in this lifetime and not to fear death.  Here we have a parable of The Wealthy Merchant and the Painted Lion and it says to seize the day, life the life, and don’t wad yourself up in some place.  Don’t cotton with yourself and hope that things will be different.  Face your fears and stand in honor. 

So, maybe you find these parables useful.  I hope you do.  I hope you find them helpful and relevant.  Honor is not an easy thing at all.  But when you are facing tyranny, when you are facing a system that is so broken that it does not care for its origin, nor does it worry or concern itself any more as to the source of its claimed authority, it needs a few good people, just a handful of a few good people to stand up and help.  Maybe the parables, if you read them and become familiar with them, may be tools that help you when you speak with people in the way of explaining principles of life, truth of life, restoring of law and there is a morality, that it is not an illusion and something that can be manipulated.  These stories resonate with us.  

This is only a short broadcast tonight and I will end with one concerning honor.  This one is called The Travelers and the Bandit King.

Parable of the Travelers and the Bandit King

1. A party of Travelers were attacked on a remote stretch of road by fierce bandits killing all, except two men.
2. Of the two survivors, one man was known to always speak the truth and the other to speak nothing but lies.
3. One of the robbers, who had raised himself to be King, commanded them to be brought before him.
4. He ordered that all the bandits stand to attention in a long row on his right hand and on his left in front of a great throne.
5. After these preparations the captured men were brought before him and the Bandit King greeted them saying:
6. Verily, your life hangs in the balance of the question I ask you thus: that what sort of a king I be to you, O strangers?
7. Before the lying Traveler could speak, the truthful Traveler replied: Alas! You be a murderer and a tyrant.
8. For no amount of ceremony or pageantry can hide the truth that you are without right or Rule of Law.
9. Behold, all men must die. And if it be my time now to die, then I die with a clear conscience and in honor to heaven.
10. Upon hearing these words, the Bandit King replied: As you have neither pledged your alliance nor pleaded for your life, you shall be executed.
11. Yet as you have spoken the truth, I shall grant you a swift and honorable death.
12. Thus, the man who always spoke the truth was led away to his fate.
13. The lying Traveler then spoke and said: Oh great and noble King! In thee I see the model of authority,
14. And your men as worthy companions of an army to be feared by all nations.
15. I pledge myself to your service and humbly petition for your mercy.
16. Upon hearing these words, the Bandit King replied: As you did pledge your alliance and pleaded for your life, you will be spared.
17. But as you lied and showed such weakness of character, you are not fit even to be known as a bandit,
18. And so I shall chain you as if a lowly dog. For better you had died a noble death than the thousand torments of a scoundrel.

     Some people are happy to live in the gutter; some people are happy to debase themselves for a fraction more of pleasure.  Sadly there are signs of those addicted to the consumable, addicted to the nature of prescription drugs or to sugar or fast food or alcohol or sex or any of the other pleasures that are promoted.  This parable again has many different proverbs in it.  To my mind what this parable speaks of is the importance of speaking the truth and though the heavens may fall to always do justice.  It is better to die on feet than live on your knees was one of the famous lines of the film Braveheart with the figure of William Wallace.

     I know that it is easy for people to say, “That is fine for you, but you are not facing prison.”  Or they might say, “You are not the one that is going to lose your home.”   I realize that.    I realize that for many unless you are in the trenches side by side, it’s hard to take things seriously or credibly.  What I am trying to do, praying and pleading to all Heaven and Earth that we cut through the fog.  And in cutting through the fog we find a reason to be honorable, to be peaceful, to be humble, to be true.  Maybe the parables help us on that and help us find a way to make sense of things, to cut through the fog and the noise.

I    I will be finishing Tara as I promised I would.  I have finished Yapa on the fiftieth anniversary to the day of the first time Australia parliament recognized indigenous laws. We have Al Sufian and we will move on to be completing Five Worlds.  There are quite a few more parables to finish but there are plenty there.  I hope you find the time to read them, that you find the time to talk with others about them, and above all that they give you some certainty that you haven’t been abandoned and that the nihilists are not correct that it is all up is down and down is up and left and right.  That there is such a thing as truth and wisdom and that society was reset and recast more than 2500 years ago.  And we have in these small stories a way of cutting through to our children, our grandchildren and to one another. 

     As I have done in the past I’d like to say thank you to all who continue to help and support.  Your help and support are greatly and humbly appreciated.  Until we speak next week, please be safe and be well.  Thank you.     

.  

   

Enough is Enough, Bringing Unjust Matters to a Close

_________________________________________________________________________________

Please download MP3 Audio Broadcast of this Blog > here   (61 min 20.9 Mb)

_________________________________________________________________________________

If you haven’t had a chance to listen to the previous audios or had a chance to read the previous blogs on Ucadia, and this is the first time that you have come to this blog and these audios, I hope you take the time at the very least to read the blogs for the last couple of weeks and listen to the last few audios.  

First off, I will be mentioning some of the material of last week.  Before I get into that, the reason that I have chosen the topic this week of Enough is Enough, Bringing Unjust Matters to a Close, is that for many who have encountered injustice when they have faced the courts, for many that have seen the evil underbelly of a system that pretends to be law, the process that you may have gone through, even just to extricate and clear yourself of what may have been thrown against you can be a trial of months, sometimes years and an experience that is life-searing, an experience that changes your life in many cases forever.  

In that process and in that trial given that there is a huge amount of information out there; and I must say the white noise and the hysteria and screeching has never been greater.  I have to tell you that in terms of Ucadia people’s negativity has never been more absurd.  People are not reading, but throwing whatever they can at it.  Some might say, “Oh, it’s Masonic imaging.  Or, it’s false information.  Or it’s disinformation.”   There is this desperation out there that people do not read, they do not listen, they do not think.  Why would that be? 

Two weeks ago we outlined 10 points of relief and 10 facts when we move forward and consider any matter that we find ourselves before the courts.  They were straight forward and they were clear.   The first was the fact that truth, an obvious truth, often takes time and when we do reveal the truth, it hurts.  The second fact was that those people who work as judges, magistrates, prosecutors, attorneys and sheriffs by definition are not evil people.   Put them in the system and they absolutely work for the system.  But, when we talk about these things we said we absolutely are focusing on the broken system and not on the people.  The third fact was that the system is broken.   Any system that puts millions of people in prison and there are more people in prison in America today that the whole rest of the world combined.  If that isn’t broken I don’t know what is. 

The fourth fact we said that the people that run the system know it’s broken.  Of course the attorneys know it’s broken, the judges and magistrates know it’s broken.  But their excuses are no different than those people who were rounded up after WWII who worked in Auschwitz and other places of horror.   “I was just following orders; I was just doing my job.”  Two weeks ago the fifth fact we said was that the courts are for-profit businesses; they are corporations no different than your local bank or your local real estate agent.   That is an absolute fact that is easily supported when one goes and sees that as businesses they are registered as businesses.   In some places it’s more transparent that they are registered businesses.  In Australia, for example, you can go and find the courts are registered businesses through the ABN system. In other places it’s a little more difficult.  But, they are all for-profit corporations now and they are not original courts.  That is an absolute fact.

The seventh fact we said two weeks ago was that the main weapons for the courts to control you are through fear and intimidation, through imaging as a key part.  Tonight when we speak of Enough is Enough, bringing unjust matters to a close you will just how strong that imaging is.   When we talk about that final revelation of what we are dealing with.   The eighth fact we said is the secondary weapon courts are promoting is your incompetence and your dishonor.  They want you to argue and you will see in a moment why argument is their “get out of trouble card” when you get up and you are belligerent.  They want you to be belligerent and that is why they have had so many people out there promoting your going in and fighting and denying.  They want you to be belligerent as that gives them their opportunity to go through.

The ninth fact we said is the courts know they are committing fraud; they know this.  They will do anything to maintain the veil of public ignorance which is why I believe that the hysteria, the disinformation, the screaming at the moment out there has never been more shrill.  We are at the cusp of realizing exactly what it is, who we are and how to conduct ourselves.  The tenth is that as the courts are for profit businesses and create case numbers and a legal person of unlimited liability which is an absurdity and because they are creating that and doing that, they rarely, if ever, back down.  They will fight to keep their money, their business, to keep the case alive.

Those are the 10 facts we listed and then we went through the 10 points of relief.   Then last week, the topic was Ending the Last Curse of the Legal Pirates.  We asked ourselves some very, very simple questions.   These were questions that, because people bog us down with so many facts and so much information and because it all seems so complex and because people keep up off balance, whether we are in court or we are trying to find a solution.   We miss the most obvious of truths and the first is that we have the absolute right to ask the question in any court we go to: “Will you be hearing this matter without prejudice?” There is no court in any country in the world, if the answer is in the negative, “No, I am not going to hear this matter without prejudice,” that is then a true court.  By refusal to answer, by obfuscation, by delay, by trickery, if you are brought before a place that has the name ‘court’ on it somewhere and the man or woman in front of you refuses to hear the matter without prejudice, then that is abuse of power.  That is an action that they cannot justify.  Once they refuse to hear a matter without prejudice, it cannot be a court, it is an inquisition.  It is torture.  It is unjust.  They know it, you know it and anyone who hears such an admission knows it as well. 

The last veil is the impression that when you are brought before these courts that there is some semblance of justice.  When they refuse to hear the matter without prejudice there is no justice, there is no court, and there is no law.  The second question we have if they say “yes” to hearing the matter without prejudice, is to say, “Can I have your oath on that?”   Bind them to their oath and get them to promise, not just to say they are going to hear the matter without prejudice, but bound them to an oath as the fiduciary.   If they say “yes” there should be no objections.  You are not asking questions that are out-of-bounds.

We said this last week is that bias in their own procedures is what causes a case to be withdrawn or dropped.  Bias is one of the fundamental errors and they cannot adjudicate a matter in any order or any sentence derived from that will be null and void on the fact of the defect of bias.  So, they cannot proceed with bias where it is clear that the issue of bias has been brought up.   If they refuse to give an oath, they are proceeding without an oath, then they are breaking their own procedures and that is failure of due process.   The third question we raised and we are modifying this slightly in the conversation tonight was “Do you have an interest, do you have any financial interest in this matter?”         

Know that the courts are a business and that the magistrate or judge is an independent contractor who picks up that piece of business and has a financial interest. 

Tonight we will bring all that into context about how we might conduct ourselves to bring such matters to a close.  That is why I raise the topic tonight of Enough is Enough.  There are a million things that I want to work on in Ucadia.  I have been working on the sacred texts of Tara, on the second book of Tara and the restoration of the old parables, the first stories 2600 years ago that became the foundation of western law and spread across through China, through Asia and America.   That is what I want to be working on.  I want to be working on Bibliographe.  I want to be working on the administrative and fiduciary canons, finishing what I set out to do.  I don’t want to be going back and having to deal with what people are raising when they say they go to court and the courts are willfully biased, have unclean hands and fail to follow their own procedures. I don’t want to hear that is the reality. 

Restore the Law, Heal the Law not Injure the Law

I am not here to attack a system, injure the law; I am here to do whatever I can to restore the law.  I have had enough as you have. I have had enough of hearing this incompetence.  I have had enough of the disinformation agents that trick people and hide the truth from people and send them down false rabbit trails.  I’ve had enough.  Before we get into the key revelations of tonight, let me say this, and I have said this a few times.  But, let me say this so that it is absolutely clear:  the last refuge of the coward, the traitor, the assassin is to wrap themselves in the flag and say that what they did was for national security, what they did was for justice.  That is, and I’m sure you would all agree, absolute horse shit.   It’s crap.  Why do I say that, before we continue?  Because it is traditionally the shrill of those exposed as frauds, pirates, criminals to argue that it is we who are causing the injury and by exposing it we are the ones committing the crime. 

They did this the other day when the extent of the unlawful monitoring that is occurring across the world into people’s private lives was exposed.  They are trolling for massive amounts of information and instead of addressing the issue of government over–reach, once again they went after the ones who revealed it, that they had broken the laws, that they had breached national security and jeopardized the safety of the country.  Let’s put that in context.  Here we have this global battle going on and we hear in the media that there are groups around the world that are threatening the stability of societies with cyber wars and all of a sudden we discover the one causing the most damage out there are agencies within the United States.  Instead of admitting what they have done, that they are saying that this revelation ‘weakens’ our country.  That is mind-numbing.  It is absolute insanity but they think that they can get away with it.       

For twenty-eight years of researching and writing Ucadia and the almost 1,000,000 pages associated with the websites, is to present a comprehensive, detailed and complete model of society, of law, of tools which creates the ability to restore the law and to heal society and to help society and to transform this madness.   If only the nihilists and people affected with mind virus would wake up.   No one can accuse Ucadia or me or being anti-social, someone trying to walk around the law.  We have designed and have taken years to do this, the criminal code.  We have processed dozens of different law statutes in history to present a way of dealing with criminal matters.   We did this with the civil code.   We did this with the judicial code. 

The canons on the website www.one-heaven.org take the maxims of law from the beginning of society and bring them together in one form.  No rational, sensible man or woman could argue that this is about perverting the courts of justice.  It’s the opposite; it’s restoring the law.  Enough is enough!  Stop putting people in jail for profit.  Stop making money off crime.  Stop attacking your own people and stop freeing people who murder and hurt people.  Stop putting the people who have no violence in prison.   It’s got to stop!   Stop destroying your own countries and stop being traitors to your own flag.  Stop being cowards, above all, and stand up and believe in something, anything in your background and your life.  If you ever believed in law, if you ever believed in something better, then for goodness’ sakes stop being a coward and pretending that you have no ability and you can’t do anything about the system, that you are just doing your job. 

The origins of the present Court processes

What can we do when we are faced with going to magistrate’s court, district court or any of their corporate businesses masquerading as courts?  Let’s go back to a topic we covered a few weeks ago.  We have covered this, in fact quite some time ago when we discussed the nature of writs.  It is how cases used to be brought forward and how justice used to work.  It is how the laws that are still on the books work today.  If you think about a case as opposed to how it is presented to you now, if you were to read Lord Blackstone’s Commentaries on the laws of England, a seminal work that summarizes the way the law was by the end of the 18^th century.   What you see was a clear set of processes.  I am not arguing that the processes were necessarily fair, even then.  But there was clearly a set of processes.

The first thing that brought about a cause, an action in law, was that some information regarding an unlawful act was brought, or a formal complaint was brought.  One of those two things occurred.  Then if you look at the procedure under Blackstone, there was an examination. There may have been an arrest if there was someone in the act of committing an offense.   It could be that we had information or we were led to believe that someone was acting unlawfully, so an arrest was made based on that information.  Or, someone complained that they saw someone commit an act.   One of those two ways.  Then there was an examination of that evidence.  If the evidence before a jury, a grand jury, appeared to warrant the matter to proceed then a bill was issued.   Actually that was 19^th century.  Under Blackstone it was called an Original Writ.  In America it was called a bill.  In England it was called an original writ or a writ original.   That is the instrument that began the process. 

By the 19^th century, once the Bank of England had gained control of the British Empire by bankrupting it, we saw the introduction of the modern system of justice that we see today.  It is summary justice, streamlined justice where the long-winded processes of the 18^th century were condensed to speed up justice and make it more efficient. After the Bank of England had introduced centralized records to treat people as commercial Admiralty goods under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Acts of 1836 and then in 1837, (plus the British Vessel Registration Act of 1845) the revision of the courts began with an act called the Indictable Offenses Act of 1848 under Victoria, C42. 

What the Indictable Offenses Act did was it brought the laws in Britain under a similar design as the laws of America, but streamlined them.   So, again, if there was information now it became a charge or a complaint and that would be brought before a grand jury.  Then a bill of indictment would be issued and forms were prescribed that had to be followed.  If those forms were not used, not valid, if the form under the statute of a valid warrant was not followed, then it was not a valid warrant.  One of those forms was the Certificate of Indictment being found.  That is to say, if a true indictment was issued from a grand jury after a complaint was lodged—think of that:  complaint, the action of the grand jury, bill of indictment and then a certificate of indictment.  So a number of steps had to be in place for the matter to move forward.  

What the Indictable Offenses Act and its amendment in 1857 introduced at this point was one form of relief that remains in place both within the United States as it does in every location that still derives the essence of its law from this system, from this invention of this system of summary justice from 1848.  From 1857 and Summary Jurisdiction Act 1857 (c.43) it is the concept of ‘frivolous.’   If there was a frivolous action brought, then the one accused had the right to immediately appeal to a higher court on an Affidavit of Facts for a rule if the magistrate or judge upon identifying it as being frivolous did not discharge the matter.  So, it introduced a number of points.  It said while we streamline this method and we have eradicated the concept of original writ, it is now fully commercial in the form of a bill,  if the charges or complaint in this process were frivolous, then you could appeal to the higher court on an affidavit of facts for an immediate ruling to have the matter discharged.  You could immediately change to a different venue if the magistrate or judge refused to act and dismiss the matter.  

I’ll get to the key point in a moment; I am just giving you the background.  People are out there and making claims and saying all kinds of things, recommending you ‘click your heels’, write this 30-page document, or whatever they are doing, one of the frequent things that are missed include the fact that there is documentary evidence, there is statutes, codes, ordinances, judicial procedures and other guidelines that you can source and refer to as evidence of a magistrate or judge or court failing their own rules.

After 1848 and 1857 we had the creation of the first private "for business" court in the British Empire with the Supreme Court Act of 1873.  As a brief aside, whenever you hear the phrase "reserve my rights", this is the date and implies you wish to be heard in a public forum, not private i.e. prior to 1873. It still puts you under Summary Jurisdiction, but not under the private "for profit" courts.

Then we had a major update which was in 1879 in the Summary Jurisdiction Act c.49 and this key act which is more than 64 pages long and is the longest of all the Summary Jurisdiction Acts ever created under the British law in the 19^th century, is where the entire system was made commercial.  Again in 1879 it streamlined itself by allowing some of the previous requirements such as the grand jury step to be obviated and in 1881 in the SummaryJurisdiction Process Act it took it a step further to the modern system where, providing judges were able to produce a signed endorsement in the proper prescribed form where under oath they stated they were satisfied that there was sufficient prima facie evidence that this was enough to proceed.   What did that mean, exactly?  The prima facie evidence, and what that means, is a sworn complaint.   If the court had seen a sworn complaint, a sworn affidavit, therefore prima facie and if the court itself then had sworn in the creation of the warrant or the creation of the summons and produced a signed endorsement to that fact, then they could move ahead and the earlier streamlined system no longer needed to be followed.

Why is this history relevant to our problems today?

So again, this was another short cut in their system?  Why is this relevant today?  It’s relevant for a number of reasons.  As we said last week in the questions, “Will you be hearing this matter without prejudice?  Yes?  Can I have your oath on that?”   The fact also is that we know magistrates and judges are acting as independent contractors under the corporate system.   We know that everything I have just described is the underpinning of their legal system.  But, their legal system now is run by corporations.  And as corporations we know the following:  we know, for example, that they do not provide sworn affidavits of complaint as prima facie evidence before they proceed.   And, instead they produce fraudulent documents in some jurisdictions of fictitious persons as unsworn statements claiming them to be a ‘complaint.’   

I saw this the other day in a place called the Northern Territory in northern Australia.  There is a matter where a fellow who has been working on material with Ucadia in regards to the indigenous has been singled out by the system because where he lives there is a group of corrupt officials who have seized land and unlawfully sold it to developers.   They have taken the land contrary to the laws of Australia, so this is an example of absolute and complete corruption.   They have seized the land, unlawfully conveyed it and they are making money with developers.  They see this man as a threat.  And so they have loaded him up with a series of charges.  Their most recent example was to produce a fictitious complaint of a person that does not exist in order to pretend that they have followed their own processes because they initially laid charges without a complaint.   This is the point when you go to court and the imaging when you go to court, particularly the magistrate’s court, and there are two ways that the magistrate’s court tricks people into jurisdiction.

The first is purely paper.  As a corporation and I have said this week after week, as a corporation they cannot issue bills; they can only issue invoices.   They cannot issue writs, they can only issue orders.   And they certainly cannot produce a signed and sworn complaint.  What they do is they create the illusion of that.   They come to you as the prosecutor and you are the defendant as they claim.  In the absence of a defense and of a counter-argument, their paper claim stands and they move forward on that.  If you don’t defend, you don’t argue, you accept and on they go.   The second is in the form of argument.  People go to court, they stand up and they say they are ‘a man,’ ‘a living man,’ or this or that and they negate the paper claim.  What they then do is through argument, the court as the umpire and the court is locked in as the umpire, and by arguing you agree there is a conflict.  If there is evidence of a conflict they can move forward. 

What people have been tricked into arguing and therefore proving clearly that if ‘there is smoke, there is fire,’ and you move forward.  Worse than that, we get locked into the role of the defendant.   If you are the defendant under their system of summary justice, you are there to lose.  There are very, very few ways a defendant can defeat an action against them.  If you are a defendant by their system, by default, in most cases you are going to lose.  So what do we do and what does this mean?  Remember, I said to you that one of the things that we are brought up and tricked into believing particularly when we go to court is the automatic assumption that we are the defendant.  Just because someone has brought a complaint, just because someone has brought an argument doesn’t mean it is true.

In the case of Ucadia what we say within the laws of Ucadia as listed on One Heaven is that there is an obligation on all of us in honor to admit our faults.  If law was just, then people would be encouraged to admit their transgressions and there would be healing through that process.  You wouldn’t have all this commercial rubbish around it and we would address the underlying transgression.  However, under their system, the fact that someone has come to you and made an accusation doesn’t necessarily make it so.  But we assume the role of defendant.   We are image trained to believe the role of defendant.  Do you have a right to counter the argument? 

In a civil case we are more open to that.  If someone makes a claim against us we say, “No,” a lodge a counter claim.  So under the counter claim argument we are more open to seeing ourselves as the Plaintiff and the prosecutor.  But, in criminal matters we are image trained to automatically assume that we come forward as a defendant and we are ‘defending’ the action brought forward.  I tell you now, if you move forward on the assumption that you are the defendant, then in 99% of the cases you are going to lose in that role.  But, if the party that has brought forward a series of claims that are frivolous under their own rules, a failure of due process under their own rules or deficient under their own rules, then it is you who are the prosecutor.  You are the prosecutor; they are NOT the prosecutor.  

Unless you bring the matter to a close effectively as the prosecutor, then the matter is going to keep going on and on; there will be another magistrate, followed by another magistrate, another prosecutor, followed by another prosecutor and you may be stuck in this twilight zone for months or years.   Once they have started a case they do not stop a case.  Rarely do they ever withdraw, so unless you bring it to a close they are going to keep it open hoping that at some point you are going to make a mistake.   That is how they are. 

What do I mean by saying that you are the prosecutor?   Let’s go back to what that affidavit really means and what your affidavit really needs to demonstrate if it can be justly argued that this is the case.  Say in the case in the Northern Territory of Australia where it is a classic example of blatant corruption, of conspiracy, of contempt and of breaching dozens of their own laws, it is outright, open corruption.  Of course, in Australia unfortunately we are bereft of any oversight.  They are allowed to get away with this and virtually no one holds them to account.  They are out of control.  In that case what the party that is under attack and cannot move forward in the current matter needs to do is to consider preparing their own case.  Then instead of their being the defendant they are the Plaintiff and they are the one bringing the complaint. 

This is back to the original form of what a true memorandum of complaint is. It is back to the original form of true memorandum and complaint.   How do you do that?  Before we get to dealing with it within the court itself, let’s talk about the elements that comprise an effective Memorandum.   First off, let’s talk about the affidavit which is the ‘carrier pigeon.’  It is the instrument that brings the memorandum forward.  I am sure as many of you know; there is a lot of disinformation that has been out there.   It is to encourage people to produce nonsensical forms into the court that automatically render our actions frivolous, or give them justification to order a psych evaluation and that is why they promote those kind of sociopathic disinformation agents, whether it is agents using mathematical language or other absurdities. 

Even though this is a private court, a private business, they make it very clear that the only form(s) that they accept must comply in the design that they state.  Otherwise they will not recognize it and they cannot rule on it.  that means that the form of affidavit needs to be in the form that their jurisdiction recognizes.  One of the tricks they do is how the affidavit looks in the Northern Territory of Australia will be different in New South Wales, different in Victoria, different in Texas, different in Canada, different in Alberta, different in England and different in New Zealand. It will be different in all the different places all over the world.  

Your Affidavit and Memorandum of Complaint

Now, all you want is an affidavit that complies in form (of your local area) which then you annex what will be your memorandum.   Bear in mind that before you even get to that point, another trick that we have raised before and that is to keep in mind that unless you have appointed or identified your right to submit a memorandum and you can certainly submit one in propria persona, but unless you have established that role, the court may deny your right to submit documents because they say you do not have the power of attorney.   Think about this:  the clerk of the court is like the teller at the bank.  At the bank they say that you have no right to do business unless you are registered with that bank with the right to do business.  That is really the power of attorney and the role of the agent.

So, assuming that you have that already in place, the first document you will prepare is a one-page affidavit.   Why?  So that nothing on that document is contrary to their own law and nothing on that front page document is contradictory and a judge or magistrate can rule on the accuracy of that one-page document in a fraction of a second. There can be no argument whatsoever that they couldn’t view that single page and merely conclude that it comports to their rules and their regulations.  What is the purpose of that one-page affidavit?   Remember, it is a ‘carrier pigeon’ that brings in the Memorandum of Complaint that summarizes your position as the prosecutor.  You don’t EVER use the word, Prosecutor; you never, ever use the word that you are the Prosecutor.  You don’t need to.

Firstly the Memorandum of Complaint reverses the role.  You don’t put yourself as the defendant; you put yourself as the Plaintiff.   The first thing that the memorandum must state, the very first thing, is by their own laws what are the charges that imply frivolous action, failure to establish subject matter jurisdiction and those relevant references to their own statutes and rules that negate the complaint?  That is the very first thing that you must list, beginning with the references that it is frivolous.  Thereafter the actual real references can demonstrate their failure to produce a valid complaint and the wording must describe the errors exactly that they failed to do.

That front page of the Memorandum of Complaint and those charges is ultimately what the magistrate will need to rule on in order to dismiss the matter ‘with prejudice.’  There might be several matters which might bring the Memorandum to two pages.  This is not about throwing in the kitchen sink.  Please don’t put on there that they are ‘breaching the constitution,’ that they are doing ‘x, y, z’; keep it relevant.   Keep it relevant and bear in mind that this is for a particular court within its own purview.  That court is not going to rule on the United Nations, that court is not going to quote the Bible.  So, please don’t be silly about your Memorandum of Complaint.  Just keep the issues of breach relevant to the matter at hand.  If there is no breach, you cannot do this.  If there are breaches you can do this.

The first page is really the ‘charge sheet’ of the Memorandum and is really the title, Memorandum of Complaint and the charges.  After that is a brief Statement of Fact.   The brief Statement of Fact is fact(s) and it’s not conjecture; it’s not opinion or questions.  It is not subjectivity and it’s not accusations.   It is fact:  this happened, this happened, I did this, they did this, I did this, and they did this. This is what this is and this is what this is. It’s all facts and not subject to interpretation, debate or dispute as it is clearly ordered.  I hope that is crystal clear to you.  It is the Statement of Fact.  Please do not write the Statement of Fact as conjecture, opinion, or questions.  Those things follow the list of charges on the charge sheet.  

Then, following the Statement of Facts is the Affidavit.  The Affidavit of Complaint is the sworn statement of the complaint; it is your sworn statement.  It is a statement of you stating the facts.  It is consistent with the summary of facts, under oath, that validate the merit of this complaint.  Then if there are any exhibits thereafter they are annexed in the end in the numbered fashion that match the referencing to the exhibits in either the sworn Affidavit or the Statement of Fact.   That is the completion of the Memorandum of Complaint. 

The opening page is the Memorandum of Complaint which include the summary of charges and the references showing exactly where they come from, the Statement of Fact, the sworn Affidavit of Complaint, and then in sequential order any annexed exhibits.  Then you bind that up and the entire Memorandum of Complaint is annexed in full to the ‘carrier pigeon’ Affidavit.  That Memorandum of Complaint is a private document. It is a private document of which a magistrate or judge has no right to judge the validity under their own rules regarding the details and form of the Memorandum of Complaint.  They can certainly review the substance of it, but they have no right to rule on its form.

Why do we do that?  Why do we have only a one page ‘carrier pigeon’ Affidavit in their form, with the annexation of the private Memorandum of Complaint annexed in full to it?  Why do we do that?  We do that because in so many parts of the world now because courts are private corporations and private businesses, they are constantly revising their own procedures to the point that they are so corrupt and so bereft of justice that they can make large, sweeping statements as they have done in many, many places where they refuse to allow certain instruments and documents to be presented.   They will refuse to accept documents and makes it virtually impossible for you to present a valid case because the private procedures of these businesses called courts now won’t entertain such action.  That is why you do the Memorandum of Complaint as a private document.  The private Memorandum of Complaint is annexed in full to the public Affidavit.  I hope what I have just said is clear; there are numerous examples out there.  If it is not clear, you go back and re-read this and re-listen to what I have just said.  It should be crystal clear with all the steps we have just gone through.

Enough is Enough

Back to bringing unjust matters to a close and Enough is Enough.  How do this work?  Well, you go down to the court with your Letter of Precipae on top which directs the clerk of the court to have this Affidavit with its annexed documents (Memorandum of Complaint, Statement of Fact, Affidavit of Complaint, and annexed exhibits) entered onto the record and you get it time stamped.  You will have a time stamped copy for your records and they will keep a time stamped copy.  They put the original into the record. 

When you front up to the matter and you are in the courtroom for the hearing the first question you ask is, “Will you be hearing this matter without prejudice? Yes, of course? Do I have your oath on that?  Yes? Is my Affidavit on your record for this matter?”  Then you wait.  They will answer “yes” or “no.”  Then you say if it is not there that you submitted it to the clerk and I have a copy, so let me produce it and provide you with this copy. (Note: you will need copies for the magistrate, their ‘prosecutor’, and the clerk as well as your own copy).  “Let me hand this to you (or have the bailiff hand it to them).”  Remember they are only ruling on one thing and it’s the single page ‘carrier pigeon’ affidavit.   They have no right to rule on anything else.

So, that one page Affidavit that they are ruling on is accompanied by the whole private document which includes the Memorandum of Complaint, the Statement of Facts, the Affidavit of Complaint and the annexed exhibits.  They are only ruling on the first page which is the ‘carrier pigeon’ Affidavit.  Then you say, “Is there any reason that you can see why this cannot be entered into the record now, your honor?” If the magistrate obstructs you, that is an immediate example of obstruction in which case you request the matter to be held (stayed) subject to an appeal to a higher court.  You will have the matter switched to a higher court and that is your right.

As I said before, that is built into their rules.  You apply to the higher court with an Affidavit of Fact for a ruling to have the matter heard as the magistrate has refused to follow his/her own procedure.  The magistrate said (s)he would hear the matter without prejudice and is now being prejudicial.   If the magistrate accepts this on the record you shut up and say nothing.  If they say yes that it is on the record then you say, “I move to have the matter dismissed with extreme prejudice on the basis of …..(round off the relevant charges in your Memorandum of Complaint Charge sheet as has been described).”  That is it. 

The magistrate will rule on the matters that you listed clearly in your affidavit and the matter is dismissed with extreme prejudice.  If the magistrates fail to do this, refuses to do that, you call the matter for an immediate halt subject to an Affidavit of Fact appealing to the higher court, which is a higher business.  It is like appealing to the ‘head office.’   You are telling the head office that the magistrate has ‘stuffed up’ and you are going to appeal to the higher court to have the matter heard because the magistrate is clearly biased and if he/she has given an oath, has perjured him/herself. 

What if the magistrate wants to argue with you?  What if the magistrate wants to be ‘semantic’ with you?  You don’t need to have an argument.  If the magistrate refused to act without prejudice you move for the matter to be shut down and moved to the higher court because you cannot get justice at that level.  That court the magistrate is in represents the magistrate court.  It doesn’t matter if you get a different magistrate.  If that court cannot hear the matter fairly, that magistrate represents the chief magistrate.  It means that court is not going to give you justice and you have the right to appeal to a higher court.  Of course you have that right; it’s built into their law.  Their whole edifice is based on them being courts of law.  

It’s not for them accept; if they refuse, you immediately appeal and you say, “On and for the record you have refused to follow your own laws and rules and whatever sentence you do today will be clearly null and void and there will be an immediate appeal at the end to the supreme court (if you are in magistrate’s court) on an Affidavit of Fact for an immediate ruling.”  They know you can do this; you know you can do this.  It’s time to bring unjust matters to a close.

Let’s summarize what we have said in this audio bearing in mind it is not legal advice, nor in anyway intended to be legal advice. Instead, we are covering very, very important issues of legal history that we are bringing here.  If you do not take the bull by the horns and bring the matter to a close, it will not close.  We have been image trained to be on the defensive.   We do not see ourselves really in the role of being the protector of our estate.  But no one can come and shake us down and use our name to rack up charges just because they want to make money off things.  You need to prepare yourself for that.  Just as they try to use what they claim is our dishonor against us, we can do exactly the same for them.

One final point:  as I said last week and the week before, and as I have been saying now on a regular basis:  the last veil of the pirates is the popular belief that they represent the law and that these are courts.  If their reaction in the end is to break all their laws, that there is no law and they are so unjust and they refuse to follow their own procedures, then keep in mind it is the last acts of the end of the pirates.  Even though some may have relief, some may find as in the case in the Northern Territory of Australia that there is no law.  Whatever you do, whatever action you do, plays an integral part in bringing this to a close.

Enough is Enough and it’s time to choose whether we are prepared to stand or not.   I hope you find this important insight into not simply being imaged into being the role of the defendant helpful and useful.  Please be safe and please be well.  Until we speak again, thank you and good night.

Ending the Last Curse of the Legal Pirates

_________________________________________________________________________________
Please download MP3 Audio Broadcast of this Blog > here   (45 min 18 Mb)
_________________________________________________________________________________

Last week I spoke about how to simplify with all the information that me may have read through Ucadia and all the information that we may be hearing from different people regarding how we can conduct ourselves better or how we might obtain some relief in the courts.  We tried to do a summary last week of ten facts and those are ten facts that I hope for those who read them would agree were immutable and unmistakable.   We then talked about ten points of relief and how we might find relief in this crumbling system.  Since I did that audio I want to thank those of you who came back and provided feedback and said they felt it was helpful to be reminded of some of these points.  At the same time even though I raised this issue when we spoke last week, there remains great confusion as to how to process all this information to a simple proposition.  

More so, there is growing confusion, especially in recent times, where far from there being a unanimous agreement on such facts as the case number being proof of the creation of a legal person and the creation of the legal person by a court being a corporate business, being in action without authority or permission and indeed a fraud against all known law when a limited liability corporation creates an unlimited liability corporation in the form of the legal person in your name.  

I felt and maybe you felt that in expressing those facts which should be immutable, clear and unmistakable, there would be some clarity in how those, even if they do not agree with Ucadia, even if they take umbrage to things that I say, even if they feel they need to‘re-package’ information for their own benefit, that at the very least there would at least be some agreement as to these fundamental facts.  

Whether it is an old adage that says that the closer you come to the truth, the more shrill the cowards and liars, whether it is the faster the system is exposed, the quicker the noise and desperation, in truth I don’t know.  In truth I don’t know whether people who are spreading outrageous falsities and confusions are agents or whether they have been influenced by the kinds of forces we spoke a few weeks ago.  What I do see is a deliberate attempt to confuse people at the very point that our knowledge should be coming clearer.  

For example, there is now a concerted effort through seminars, emails, audios, by one particular guru who has been discredited several times who is now adamant that we should not speak of the courts being broken in any fashion or committing acts of fraud, or judges, magistrates sitting with unclean hands and instead tells people falsely and absurdly that there is equity in these corporate courts.  And, he is using scripture to confuse and entice people.  

There has not been equity in the courts since the courts have become corporate.  A corporate court means that it has NO equity.  There is no equity in corporate courts and, in fact, the United States Code states it blatantly that these are not courts of equity.  It is abundantly clear but for those that may not know, those that possibly doubt the accuracy of things people say, here is a guru that is spreading out and out lies just when we are reaching a point of clarity to the facts.  

Another movement that has sprung up as we get closer to the truth is now this wholesale promotion to people to go out and register your name as a trading name.  For goodness’ sake, why would you make the process easy for the corporate system to insure that it can claim you are subject to its jurisdiction?  If you go and register a trading name, you are agreeing and more than that, that trading name and the structure of those contracts make it very, very easy to show that you are subject, agreed to and contracted to their jurisdiction. Of course it does.  As some say, well there are examples, legends, cases, however vague where people have succeeded because they have gone and used their name as a trading name and that this has somehow complicated or obstructed, slowed down, or prevented different courts from proceeding.  

I would argue once again just as we saw in the deliberate promotion of the private laws, private laws that are owned by the American legal institute as a body of different law, bar, pirate associations to promote the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).  Once again, there is enormous white noise out there promoting these issues.  Is there doubt with the points we have been raising?  Sure, doubt is a fact of life.  I doubt every day and I had a discussion with my amazing partner who has supported me for more than seventeen years in this process.  As I have sacrificed days and weeks, years and now decades, she has sacrificed time and effort.  Sure, we had a discussion and we spoke about the future and doubt and concerns.  I have doubt all the time.  

Are there people who have used information and not found a result?  Absolutely.  There are plenty of people who have come to Ucadia, read material and gone on and not necessarily found a result.  But, to say that Ucadia doesn’t work is an out and out falsity, absurdity and a deliberate misconstruing of the truth.  Because Ucadia does not promote a ticker box, a fill in the blanks, a lock and load shoot it out and see what happens.  If anything in the last 6 to 12 months I have been at pains to present knowledge as opposed to ‘plug and play.’  I know this because many people have written after we have done an audio and said, “Can you give this to me in a form?” I say that the knowledge is there, the explanation is there and there is enough for you to go and make sense of what to do. 

Why is it that there is so much doubt, concern, white noise at this moment when we spoke so clearly about these facts?   It comes down to this:  for those that go to court with the best of intentions, with all their ducks seemingly in a row,  courts are still not following not following their own rules, changing things along the way, judging and ordering contrary to due process.  And these judges and magistrates in their professional capacity are smirking like Cheshire cats.   Maybe three years ago or four years ago when people would talk about the courts, at that point for me there was still the belief that these were the ‘temples of law,’ the courts of law.

What a number of extraordinarily brave, intelligent, courageous and persistent people all around the world have been contributing and working together and has made clear that these courts have no competency, no provenance, no knowledge of the law whatsoever.  As that veil has been lifted we see the courts in desperation going back to the old tricks of occult, secret knowledge, handshakes, esoteric words, secret this and that.  Again in the canons of law of www.one-heaven.org from many great researchers there has been the exposure that gold fringe on flags, admiralty this and all these different things are distractions. The courts wouldn’t know the occult, the provenance of what they do if it fell on them.  They have no idea whatsoever.

Yet, the courts still pretend, the magistrates and judges are still pretending that the end of a case, when they have normally ruled against men and women who have gone and clearly shown there is no basis, it is one final curse as they smile and by implication say to us without speaking it, “if only you knew the law, you would be okay, but because you followed some false trail you are a bloody idiot.”  That is their final curse that caused my churning stomach that if I didn’t listen, if I had only followed and believed I’d have been better off and because I read, because I felt I had some knowledge, I was led astray.   Well, it’s time to end that final curse of the pirates tonight, finally end it for all.

I can’t stop the disinformation agents; I can’t stop those that are being paid or suffering grave madness and insanity who are out there promoting all kinds of false information.   But what we can do tonight is we can make clear exactly whether or not these are or are not courts of law.  How do we make it clear and plain?  If you go to a court and indeed if you have watched TV series about courts on television, one of the symbols that you will see most often is the symbol of Lady Justice.   

It is usually a young maiden in traditional dress and usually blind-folded, holding the set of scales and sometimes holding a sword.  While that symbol has a lot of dark side, pagan sides to it, what I want to focus on is that that symbol represents the most fundamental premise for a place to be a court in the first instance.  

The lifting of the very last veil

To be a court there must be the appearance at least of fairness, of justice without prejudice, of due process or what we call rule of law.  And of course, there must be clean hands.  Now when any or all of those can be proven not to be the truth, then that place whether it be the most elaborate temple full of marble, some small county court, some district court, whatever it may be, it cannot argue by its own rules of being a court. It is so fundamental that a court must appear to be without prejudice, following due process and with clean hands.  If any of those things are proven not to be there then the matter cannot be proceed, any judgment cannot stand and in many cases those that have prosecuted cases under that find themselves under their own internal penalties.   Sometimes, if it is a grave miscarriage of justice they find that their careers are over.  

So how are they getting away with this?  We know that the courts are stepping out and making presumptions that are not justified, but how are they getting away with it?  It’s very simple.  We are not holding them to account; we are being distracted.  We have focused on all the different procedures, documents, actions, words, varieties, different choices and we have forgotten the most basic things that are on our side.  While I have spoken about documents in terms of our estates and trusts and agents, really in relation to the administrative and paperwork of matters, when it comes to the point that we are forced to make our presence in one of their commercial courts we have failed to address the most fundamental point.  

The single most important question to end the curse

The fundamental point is as obvious and simple as it sounds, “Is this or is this not a court of law?”  It doesn’t matter if it is an admiralty court, a commercial court, business, none of those matter, but “is this a court of law?  Is there any law here today?”  How do we do that?  Providing we get through the dance of the veils of “are you Frank O’Collins or are you XYZ, are you the name or not”, all those games, when it finally comes down to an opportunity in the proceedings at the very earliest opportunity, we have both the right and the obligation to ask the most important question: “will you be hearing this matter without prejudice?”   That is the single most important question we should ask when ever we have to face any of these corporate courts.   

I know when I say that, that people will say, “hold on a second; that isn’t what you have been saying.”  I have heard different things and I should do this or that.  Look, yes we have accumulated material over time and part of what we have been trying to do is drain the swamp, get to the point, pull back the veil so people see these people (judges and magistrates) for what they are which is independent contractors, privateers if they were properly credentialed and if not, just pirates.  In the process sometimes we can throw out so much information that people miss the point.  

The first question we should ask is,”will you be hearing this matter without prejudice?”  A magistrate or judge really has only two choices:  to say “yes” or to obfuscate, distract, answer a question with a question and to forestall.  Let’s take the forestalling, obstruction, the refusal to answer a simple question: is this a court?  Is this a court of law? Will you be hearing this matter without prejudice?”  It is a very simple and straight forward question.  If they won’t answer the question then you can say, “Well, your honor, I request an immediate halt in the proceeding subject to a lodgment to have you recused for admitting willful bias.”  If they won’t agree to hear the matter without prejudice they have just agreed that they are going to be prejudicial before the matter is even foresworn.

It is this simple.  If you cannot get a fair hearing then that judge must be recused.  It does not matter if they are on the payroll of the county.  It doesn’t matter whether they have an interest in the case or any of those things.  If they simply will not hear the matter without prejudice then it is not a court of law.  On this point if we consider what if the answer is ‘yes’, let’s remind ourselves of something that I have raised with you and we have spoken about over the last few weeks, months and years in fact.  That is there will come a time in our dealings with these pirates where the court of public opinion will see them for what they are and that there will no longer be any illusion that they represent in any fashion the law and certainly the rule of law.  

But so long as we are affected by and do not challenge them on these most fundamental concepts, then they will continue to smirk at the curse at the end of each case and sow that seed of doubt as best they can that if only you had listened to the orthodoxy and the dogma you would have been okay.  But, because you went out and you thought you could learn I have cursed you by this adverse finding.  It’s time to end the last curse of these legal pirates.  One day if they wish to remain in business they will have to put up their business shingle, The Inquisition or Tortures Are Us or whatever business they are forced to trade under because everyone knows they cannot be regarded as a true court of law in any fashion or corruption because they cannot, will not and refuse to hear matters without prejudice.  

If they answer in the negative by obscuring and refusing to answer, then fine.  Put the matters on hold, lodge an immediate appeal to have that magistrate or judge recused by his own words on the record that he refuses to hear the matter without prejudice.  As the word gets out, providing you ask this simply and honestly, most I would expect will answer this, “Of course I will,” when we ask if they will be hearing the matter without prejudice.  They may say or act like, “What a stupid question.”  If they answer in the positive, what do you say then?  What you say immediately after is, “Do I have your oath on that?”   Do I have your oath on that promise?  Will you be hearing this matter without prejudice and they say that of course they will, what a stupid question.  So then you ask if you have their oath on that promise.

If they are not prepared to give an oath, then you have a second reason to call a halt to the proceeding and lodge an appeal because the judge, justice, magistrate has just admitted a willful breach of due process.  They are under oath we are told, by their own laws, to administer fair justice.  If they are not prepared to take an oath that moment in support of the proposition that they are hearing the matter without prejudice, then they are breaching due process and they are clearly prejudicial as well.  You now have to reasons to have that magistrate, that judge immediately recused from that case.  

So if you follow up with that straight question, “Do I have your oath on that promise?”   most will say yes, but by this point he judge or magistrate will be most annoyed with you and for good reason because you have just bound then now as the fiduciary; it’s that simple.  And it’s to that promise that they are going to hear the matter without prejudice.  There is only one more question to ask.  “Do you have an interest in this matter, your honor?”   After you have bonded them as the fiduciary and after you have bonded them and they have agreed they are going to move forward without prejudice, then you ask them if they have an interest in this matter. 

You know and I know that they cannot answer that without lying.   If they say, “yes” you can simply say that we have it on the record that you have claimed you have no interest.  Then I would not push it further than that.  There are many, many tricks that they do. We know that they are not allowing affidavits to be on the record, of the affidavit may be accepted by a court clerk and then when it comes to the court matter the judge will throw it out and not admit it and of course without the affidavit, the sworn evidence there are not facts or dispute of facts for the magistrate or judge to ‘weigh.’   If the matter is uncontested in the weight of evidence then they can immediately rule in favor of the party that has presented the facts.  That is another trick they do by ruling out the affidavit and therefore eliminating the opposition.

The tricks played on Affidavits

So there are things you need to consider once you have them to a point and you can ask “is my affidavit entered on the record?”  Yes or no?  If it is ‘yes’ you don’t have to say a single word.  If you have filed and affidavit and the affidavit is consistent with the points we have raised in the last few weeks in blogs, and I won’t go through that now, as we are trying to keep this really simple on these key points tonight.  If they say “No” then you ask why.  They might say they did not understand it, they did not agree, it did not conform.  Then you say, “very well, given that the form is not consistent I will now read it into the evidence as a sworn testimony.”   I am sorry for that mistake, your honor.  Remember you need to have that counter-argument of facts, an affidavit being a clear statement of facts and no opinions or questions.  If they are operating without prejudice they have to allow you that opportunity.  If you hadn’t made that mistake your affidavit should have been on the record, contesting the facts.   

There are many, many tricks that these pirates, independent contractors will do.  As we are saying in this audio tonight, if we allow ourselves the opportunity not to be distracted by the shrill shrieks, the desperate need to distract us to follow yet another dead end, to listen to all the hysteria that is out there, if a judge or magistrate will not answer the question in the affirmative, “Will you be hearing this matter without prejudice?” then it is not a court of law in any form.  There is absolutely no law.  It is that simple.  It is that simple!  

There are many cases to render defective a ruling and one that is often cited is subject matter jurisdiction.  I know that there is material out there that says they don’t have jurisdiction and they proceed anyway and ignore all that.  They are doing this and they are relying on two things as a defense.  One is for you to argue which in many cases once you augment, add, and change what is on the record with your affidavit, once you speak beyond that then YOU, not THEY immediately render your affidavit null and void.  The other is to get people in a position of argument where it can be argued particularly if they raise something that they have been taught falsely by these false gurus, they can use that.  This is why they are doing this; they can use those falsities against you by demonstrating that you need a psych eval because you are clearly insane.  You are clearly upset, you are clearly demonstrating dishonor and you are obviously suffering some form of paranoia. 

You listened to all this stuff so the judge or magistrate will then order a psych eval.  That is what they are doing to people.   They are promoting these false things.  We are making it easy for them, so easy for them, because so many of us are listening and mixing up absolute rubbish out there.  They are paying these people big money to go out and promote this on the internet.  If they can get one person in a court who is close to winning their case to vomit forth something they heard from some crazy guru talking about equity or some magic phrase or anything else, then they harm their case.   

There are lots of way to deal with the appeal, the nullification, the voiding of judgments and orders that are made but really tonight is about the simplest of realizations.  They cannot get away from the argument that the matter before them MUST be handled without prejudice.  That is an obligation that they tell the public and it is in the symbols of their courts and the symbols of their coats of arms, their seals and it is embedded in the psyche.  If the courts are seen to openly and willfully act with prejudice you can clock their survival with an egg timer.   

As we said, the very first question we should be asking when we go to court and before a detail of the matter is brought forward, is, “will you be hearing this matter without prejudice?”   Before I finish, this is the key message for tonight.  If they say, ´yes,’ then we ask if we can have their oath on that promise. Once you have that you can ask if the judge or magistrate has an interest in the matter.  Without prejudice, due process, and clean hands are three fundamental principles that they cannot ignore.

So what else is keeping the last veil in place?

The last thing I want to cover is the question of why is this veil remaining and why is so much information clouded?  What is going on?  Why are people still being so distracted?  I am going to refer to a topic we raised a few weeks ago and it was a topic at the time which I know people may have found outside of their comfort zone, but I am referring back to the key element of the status quo.  That is, there is a definite energy, a definite spiritual presence that is active in promoting the status quo and active in continuing to distract and confuse and weaken as more and more knowledge comes out.  It is a spiritual energy that is desperately fearful and there is a clue as to what it is:  desperately fearful for the power of the awakened mind and for the power when people stand up and are not distracted and not continuing to go down the rabbit hole.  It is an energy that when people accept personal responsibility, is terrified that people will take personal responsibility.  

That should be enough if you have read the canons at www.one-heaven.org and that is to be able to name and see this energy.  It is playing a big, big part in distracting people from the simplicity. The simplicity of the message tonight has no forms, no long dissertations, no citations, no confusion, no long list of ‘to-dos’ and something that anyone who can read, right and remember what they have said on television would see as sensible, the energy, the distraction we are talking about is all that negative energy of unrestrained consumption, murderous video games, sadistic pornography and addictions to drugs and rampant ego combined with ghosts.  It’s not spirit in terms of demon, not mind in terms of the collective awareness, but between two worlds.  It’s an energy that finds itself between two worlds and seeks to maintain what it senses and believes to be its ultimate position which is a hatred of the world, a hatred of life, a hatred of redemption, a hatred of love, a hatred of rule of law. It’s everywhere; we see it everywhere.

I mention that because that is something that we need to name and indeed we need to collectively forgive.  The thing that this energy that continues to distract is terrified about is that its removal is not by hating or fearing it but embracing and forgiving it and name it for what it is.   To name a thing for what it is.  This continues to play a key part in this destruction of law.  Why?  Because when the courts of law are exposed as nothing more than a fraud, when magistrates and judges have to start administering law without prejudice, again, then the world can be healed and this energy can be healed.   This ghost energy will have to move on and will move on because we forgive, remember, name and see it.   

So there it is.  This is ending the last curse of the legal pirates by remembering the three Achilles of their system in perpetuating the lie of their courts of law.  Will you be hearing this matter without prejudice?  Yes, of course.  Do I have your oath on that promise?  Yes.  Do you have an interest in this matter?  Any one of those, all of those is grounds to stop it dead in its tracks.  

As I say each week and I say this sincerely, most importantly I want to thank those of you who haven’t given up, been distracted by all the white noise out there and have found ways to continue to help with what we are doing.  Your help and support is invaluable.  We know how difficult it is for everyone with what you are doing.   I know how hard it is in the way that the financial system constrains the energy of money.  So those that have and continue to help, thank you.  Thank you for not giving up.  

Be well and be safe.  Thank you and good night.