legaleagle wrote:The issue I see with the straw man argument is that the 'experts on it use such terminology as 'you are the executor' and 'tell the court you are not your birth certificate but instead it's representative.' This suggests that you are a separate person from your legally responsible self, and by saying these terms the court will somehow be a different place. I have never seen nor do I expect to see a court except these arguments (my opinion, I know I might be wrong in the end) and I think in a lot of cases it gives people a false hope while making them more suspicious of the court system that can actually help them.
I do recommend you watch Dean Clifford. As I understand it, courts are executing Trust Law (based on the Holy Trinity - The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost) though I've not found a video yet where he specifically explains how he's arrived at this deduction. There are a couple of fundamental principles I have taken from his videos though:
1) Courts are executing Trust Law (the highest form of law). They do not want you to know this, and do not want you to be aware of it. This is based on a 3 way trust agreement between 3 entities: The Executor (the judge), The Beneficiary (the crown), and the Trustee (public servant aka you (if you choose to play this role, read on...)).
2) The trust agreement was created when your parents granted you benefits from the state (when they registered your birth). The birth certificate is a receipt of this trust agreement. You hold this document as proof of existence of the trust agreement, and they (the state) probably also hold some documentation somewhere their side. The piece of paper you hold should be signed by them to confirm they acknowledge its creation. This is where I am now beginning to see past the strawman concept further onto the trust agreement paradigm.
3) If the Trustee does anything which is seen to void the trust agreement, they are liable. This is 100% fact, in terms of trust law. The Trustee is punishable by what ever means necessary due to this breach of trust.
4) Law (in a general sense) is based on presumptions. If you do not rebut these presumptions, they stand as valid and truth in court and the court case continues under these presumptions.
5) By default, when you are summoned to court (which is their place of business), you are doing so under the presumption (by the court) that you are the Trustee. There for, you better do damn well what they tell you to do, and if you don't, they will -make- you do it, but only if you have not rebutted the presumption that you are the Trustee. If you make it clear you are the Executor/Beneficiary, then the tables are turned and roles are swapped.
6) It does not matter what your NAME is when you are in court. It matters only what ROLE you are playing (the Trustee, Beneficiary or Executor).
7) Based on all of the above, this means it is essential that within the first few seconds of being in court, in front of the judge, you definitively state what your role is. I say definitively as if you say "I believe I am the Executor of MR THOMAS ANDERSON", they will have your balls for sure, as you are being insubordinate and are in contempt of court (which is an offence, and could possibly mean jail time). It is all about intimidation, to bring you under their control, so you will submit to being fitted into the mould of being the Trustee. It has to be an authoritative statement - when the judge goes "so who are you?" - you reply "I am the Executor and Beneficiary / CEO of <SUCH AND SUCH LEGAL ENTITY>", be that entity your legal person (MR THOMAS ANDERSON) or your business.
8) If you have the confidence and balls, and you make it clear from the outset that THEY are the Trustees (public servants) and YOU are the Executor and Beneficiary of your legal person (MR THOMAS ANDERSON), they then have very little leverage in anything. I have watched Dean talk about cases where he has done this, and he has just filed for "motion to quash". They make a big scene about it, and try and draw him back into further discussion, but he stands his ground (even with two Sheriffs either side of him) until the court (judge) basically goes silent, because THEY KNOW they can't actually make him do anything. At which point, he politely advises them that he considers the hearing now closed, case dismissed and walks out the court room (amazing!).
9) Lawyers are a complete and utter waste of time and money when it comes to this stuff. If you appoint one, they are simply advising you as you represent yourself (as the Trustee) in court. They are laughing all the way to the bank, and will happily sail you down the river, because they are not liable for anything as it is YOU that are the Trustee. Great industry to be in for sure, if you like screwing people over and KNOW you're doing it! Dean has again disclosed how he sees the system to work to lawyers outside of court, and they do nothing but "smile" at his ideas, no doubt, because they KNOW he has sussed everything out!!
10) Always go into court prepared. Do not expect the judge to know everything. If you claim (presume) something, cite it. It may be rebutted by them. Be prepared to keeping rebutting back. But stay away from citing statue legislation and government acts because they are all irrelevant (they fall under Statute/Contract Law which is all part of the controlling system which they presume you to be part of). It will no doubt be Trust Law and Common Law principles that should be presented, thus following fundamental deductions from those to finalise and win the case.
legaleagle wrote:Although I have not watched much of Dean Clifford from what you have said he is making distinctions where there isn't any the statement "you've only bankrupted my legal person, not me personally" is rather irrelevant as the effect of bankrupting your legal person is that it effects you (since in my opinion they are one and the same.)
I hope you can see from my above points that bankrupting your legal person only affects you because you permit it to do so. Another base point he constantly hammers home in his videos is... all this stuff happens because people let it happen. People pay their income tax because they are letting it happen. At a fundamental level, the state has no business interfering with your private and financial affairs, which means you do not have to pay tax to them. The only reason we let them take tax is because we are scared to rebut them because we think they have bigger guns than we do (which is indeed how things used to be in the Robin Hood days of our country, the rich robbing the poor etc). I do believe, however, that the Robin Hood robbery is still happening today, it's just we have all been so merrily brainwashed by media and politics, we don't see it. Legalised criminal activity (as traderfluff has hinted). Definitely not Lawful.
This is another reason why I am hoping that the Lawful Bank starts up soon. I want to withdraw all my cash from my bank, and bring it over to them. Ultimately, I will then work privately and all financial activity will happen through the Lawful Bank. I will only be able to deal with likewise entities (individuals and businesses) which also bank through the Lawful Bank but doing this means the entire thing is now outside their (the state, government, HMRC) realm of influence and governance. They have no business with my affairs, and they have no way of tracing me either. The current system allows them to watch, and knock on your door with guns if you don't comply. It is intimidation, it is regulated, and it is monitored. And all this is unlawful, at the most fundamental principles of Common Law.