Thursday, February 9, 2012
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
updates
Dear Fellow Australians,
Below is a re-type of a transcript from the Burwood Local Court on 30 July 2008 when the "Magistrate" had the Sheriffs remove me when I demanded my Right to Trial by Jury and demanded the legal procedure of Challenging the Jurisdiction of the Court. On 20 August 2008, two Police Officers turned up at my work and arrested me, took me to Castle Hill Police Station, the Sergeant refused me bail, I was transported in the usual dog box on the back of a Police Ute to Hornsby Court, being put into cells each time, transported to Silverwater Jail for overnight imprisonment, transported to Burwood Court, to the cells, and released "on bail" at 1:00 PM to come back on 9 September....I 've not seen any Charge Sheet, Arrest Warrant, etc., etc..
Here are the words exchanged on 30 July 2008.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
COPYRIGHT RESERVED
NOTE: Copyright in this transcript is reserved to the Crown. The reproduction, except under authority from the crown, of the contents of this transcript for any purpose other than the conduct of these proceedings is prohibited.
SOD:SND W3621-G 355/08
LOCAL COURT
BURWOOD
MAGISTRATE DAKIN
WEDNESDAY 30 JULY 2008
Commissioner of Taxation v John WILSON
OFFENCE Failing to comply with a court order to furnish Business Activity Statements
Ms DREVER for the Informant
Accused appeared in person
HIS HONOUR: Sir are you John Wilson?
ACCUSED: That’s me.
HIS HONOUR: Would you just stand behind the tall microphone please. Do you have anybody representing you here today sir?
ACCUSED: What’s your name?
HIS HONOUR: I’m magistrate Dakin. Do you have anybody representing you here today?
ACCUSED: NO I’m here to challenge the jurisdiction of the court. I have it in written form and I’d like the stamp by the court and the court keep one copy and one copy to the opposition and I’ll keep the other two.
HIS HONOUR: All right so just before we get onto that Mr Wilson –
ACCUSED: Well you can’t get on with anything because I’m challenging the jurisdiction of the court. All proceedings cease. There is a peremptory stay of proceedings until the jurisdiction is determined by a special jury. That is the law.
HIS HONOUR: Do you want to swap places? Do you want to sit up here? Guess what?
ACCUSED: Do you know the law?
HIS HONOUR: Guess what?
ACCUSED: Do you know the law?
HIS HONOUR: Just listen to me. I run this court, not you.
ACCUSED: No, the people run this court, you’re only a servant of the people. You’re only a servant.
HIS HONOUR: I don’t dispute that, but it’s my court –
ACCUSED: It’s not your court, it’s the people’s court.
HIS HNOUR: -- and I’ll run proceedings.
ACCUSED: Where’s your name on the door? This is a court of the people. Not you.
HIS HONOUR: Now listen to me. I’ll listen to you but there’s one condition, you listen to me. Understood?
ACCUSED: Do you understand?
HIS HONOUR: What?
ACCUSED: Do you understand that I have a right for a trial by jury and that I am –
HIS HONOUR: No you don’t.
ACCUSED: Do you understand?
HIS HONOUR: No you don’t bu anywau listen to me.
ACCUSED: You’re saying I don’t have the right, you mean our right to trial by jury has beenextinguished? By who?
HIS HONOUR: Will you listen to me r I’ll have you removed. It’s that simple.
ACCUSED: I’m challenging the jurisdiction of the court, it’s simple.
HIS HONOUR: Will you listen to me. We are not at that point, right?
ACCUSED: Are we getting there?
HIS HONOUR: Well if you give me an opportunity to speak we might. Finish at 4 o’clock. There are a number of allegations before the court, there are ten allegations of failing to comply with a court order
to furnish a Business activity Statement for the periods September 04, December 04, March 05, June 05, September 05, December 05, March 06, June 06, September 06, December 06. Do you challenge the jurisdiction of the court in respect to those matters?
ACCUSED: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: There is a second set of proceedings –
ACCUSED: That is called subject matter. I challenge the jurisdiction. There are three basic grounds for challenging, one is subject matter, the other is relationship, the other one is competence. I’m challenging on all grounds. Now I’d like those papers stamped and returned to me please.
HIS HONOUR: There is a second set of proceedings, 19 allegations of failing to comply with the requirements to lodge GST returns for the period ending 30 June 2002. Do you challenge the jurisdiction of the court?
ACCUSED: I challenge the jurisdiction of the court to deal with those matters.
DREVER: Sir if I just may interrupt the defendant here. Your Honour in relation to the first set of offences the first charge is – I seek leave to withdraw that charge you Honour so there should be nine offences under s 8H of the taxation Administration Act, and the second set of offences your Honour I have no knowledge of.
HIS HONOUR: In fact –
DREVER: I believe they may be – the offences your Honour referring to in the second set may be the initial conviction which has led to this matter coming before the court again. They related to – were they in court your Honour on 17 December last year?
HIS HONOUR: Yes.
DREVER: Yes your Honour. The defendant was convicted on that occasion and failure to comply with an order made on that occasion means that the matters have come back to court today on a new Court Attendance Notice.
HIS HONOUR: So they’re the allegations under s 8G and s 8H.
DREVER: That’s right your Honour and in relation to the first charge I seek leave to withdraw that first charge, so the matters before the court –
HIS HONOUR: Whish is on or about 18 February 2008 at North Rocks, is that right, is that sequence 1?
DREVER: They all start in that fashion your Honour but it relates to the BAS for the period between 1 July 2004 and 30 September 2004.
HIS HONOUR: All right so, 1(i).
DREVER: That’s right yuor Honour yes.
HIS HONOUR: Why don’t you come and have a seat at the bar table sir. Have a seat over there. Now the prosecutor wants to withdraw sequencenumber 1 sir, which is 1 (i) on the Court attendance Notice. Do you have any objection to that?
ACCUSED: I’m objecting to the jurisdiction of the court.
HIS HONOUR: I understand that but do you have any objection to that charge being withdrawn? How can I determine jurisdiction –
ACCUSED: You can’t detemine anything, you’ve got no jurisdiction.
HIS HONOUR: All right –
ACCUSED: Do you understand? You have no jurisdiction because I have not signed a Memorandum of Consent to say that I would be without a jury. It’s the law. No parliament can take away the rights of the people. Our most important right, the glory of English law, as Blackstone said, the glory of English law is trial by jury.
HIS HONOUR: Have a seat, if you’d like to of course.
ACCUSED: Thank you.
HIS HONOUR: Now where’s these documents you want me to look at?
ACCUSED: Why do you want to look at it, you’ve got no jurisdiction. Yu have no – there is a peremptory stay of proceedings. It’s in that document. Read it.
HIS HONOUR: I just asked to read it and you said I’m not going to.
ACCUSED: Then you are denying not only my rights, legal rights, but also you are denying legal procedure. This is the definition of a kangaroo court. Do you understand that this is a kangaroo court?
HIS HONOUR: No
ACCUSED: It is a kangaroo court because you are disregarding legal rights and you are disregarding legal procedures. My right to trial by jury, you’re disregarding that, this is a legal procedure, challenging
the jurisdiction of the court, you are disregarding that. That is the definition of a kangaroo court.
HIS HONOUR: Do you want me to read your documents or not?
ACCUSED: No. You’ve got no jurisdiction.
HIS HONOUR: Proceed.
DREVER: Yes your Honour.
ACCUSED: You’ve got no authority to proceed. You are in violation of the law.
HIS HONOUR: You just watch it happen around you sir.
ACCUSED: I can’t hear – what?
HIS HONOUR: I said you just watch this all happen around you, you can participate if you want to—
ACCUSED: And you are defying justice, justice is the protection of right and the punishment of wrongs. You are going against justice. You are in contempt of court because contempt of court is interfering with the administration of justice.
DREVER: Your Honour I’ll just get my documents.
HIS HONOUR: Hm-mm.
ACCUSED: We all must know our rights otherwise we have none.
DREVER: Your Honour I have a statement from the ATO office, does your Honour—
ACCUSED: You are not taught in schools—
DREVER: --I’m not sure if the defendant objects—
ACCUSED: --they are relying upon your ignorance. They are getting away with these..(not transcribable).. reports, it is all totally illegal. It is treason in fact. Treason. What these people are doing is treason. They are denying democracy. They are denying trial by jury, that is treason.
HIS HONOUR: One more outburst—
ACCUSED: I’m trying to help you.
HIS HONOUR: One more outburst and I’ll have you removed.
ACCUSED: I’m trying to help you.
HIS HONOUR: No, no, no.
ACCUSED: Yes you are, you’re doing wrong. Do you know the wording of the Bill of Rights? It says, “Even counselor, judges and ministers endeavouring—
HIS HONOUR: Are you going to allow the prosecutor to present her case?
ACCUSED: No because there is no jurisdiction in this court. It’s simple. We have the – there was even a case back in 1824 against the magistrates of Sydney and it came down heavily against the magistrates of Sydney because they were denying ordinary people the right to trial by jury. Have you read that case?
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson I just activated the duress alarm. You’ll be removed in a moment. You are interfering with the processes of this court.
ACCUSED: No I’m not. You are interfering the court—
HIS HONOUR: You just turned your back and addressed the gallery while a prosecutor was speaking—
ACCUSED: Because this is a public court.
HIS HONOUR: I’ve invited you to allow the prosecutor to present her case, she will not do so, I’m going to have you removed.
ACCUSED: I’m denying because they have no jurisdiction. Are you going to get the sheriffs, because the role of the sheriff is to protect our rights and allow us to exercise those rights in safety. That’s the role of the sheriff. Are you going to get the sheriff to disobey his duty.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson, the sheriffs are behind you, I’m going to ask them to remove you—
ACCUSED: Do you know your job?
SPEAKER: You’ll have to come out sir.
ACCUSED: See, a simple question.
HIS HONOUR: I’ve given you many warnings, I’ve given you the opportunity to cease interfering with the processes of this court, you are refusing to do so—
ACCUSED: There is no court of proper jurisdiction. It is a kangaroo court.
SPEAKER: Let’s go out.
ACCUSED: I’ve been in communication with the Sheriff of New South Wales, I got a call – Chris Allen, trying to help him, showing him his own duty of care and he is to protect our rights and what you are doing is denying those rights. It’s a simple case of justice.
SPEAKER: Let’s go, let’s go.
ACCUSED: See they do this all the time, there’s only two sheriffs, normally about five or six. Contact me any time.
HIS HONOUR: Ms Drever?
DREVER: Yes your Honour I have--
HIS HONOUR: You might be able to present your case now.
DREVER: I have my witness here your Honour but would your Honour allow me to tender her statement?
HIS HONOUR: Yes
DREVER: I tender a statement of Elizabeth Vestos(?) of the ATO dated 2 June 2008 and does your Honour wish me to tender a statement of facts at this point?
HIS HONOUR: Yes
DREVER: And the defendant’s record. I tender those documents your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Thanks. Just pardon me while I read that material.
THE MATTER OF COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION AND JOHN WILSON I GRANT LEAVE TO WITHDRAW SEQUENCE 1(i).
I FIND EACH OF THE OTHER ALLEGATIONS PROVED, S 196.
S 25(2) WARRANT TO ISSUE.
oOo
Below is a re-type of a transcript from the Burwood Local Court on 30 July 2008 when the "Magistrate" had the Sheriffs remove me when I demanded my Right to Trial by Jury and demanded the legal procedure of Challenging the Jurisdiction of the Court. On 20 August 2008, two Police Officers turned up at my work and arrested me, took me to Castle Hill Police Station, the Sergeant refused me bail, I was transported in the usual dog box on the back of a Police Ute to Hornsby Court, being put into cells each time, transported to Silverwater Jail for overnight imprisonment, transported to Burwood Court, to the cells, and released "on bail" at 1:00 PM to come back on 9 September....I 've not seen any Charge Sheet, Arrest Warrant, etc., etc..
Here are the words exchanged on 30 July 2008.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
COPYRIGHT RESERVED
NOTE: Copyright in this transcript is reserved to the Crown. The reproduction, except under authority from the crown, of the contents of this transcript for any purpose other than the conduct of these proceedings is prohibited.
SOD:SND W3621-G 355/08
LOCAL COURT
BURWOOD
MAGISTRATE DAKIN
WEDNESDAY 30 JULY 2008
Commissioner of Taxation v John WILSON
OFFENCE Failing to comply with a court order to furnish Business Activity Statements
Ms DREVER for the Informant
Accused appeared in person
HIS HONOUR: Sir are you John Wilson?
ACCUSED: That’s me.
HIS HONOUR: Would you just stand behind the tall microphone please. Do you have anybody representing you here today sir?
ACCUSED: What’s your name?
HIS HONOUR: I’m magistrate Dakin. Do you have anybody representing you here today?
ACCUSED: NO I’m here to challenge the jurisdiction of the court. I have it in written form and I’d like the stamp by the court and the court keep one copy and one copy to the opposition and I’ll keep the other two.
HIS HONOUR: All right so just before we get onto that Mr Wilson –
ACCUSED: Well you can’t get on with anything because I’m challenging the jurisdiction of the court. All proceedings cease. There is a peremptory stay of proceedings until the jurisdiction is determined by a special jury. That is the law.
HIS HONOUR: Do you want to swap places? Do you want to sit up here? Guess what?
ACCUSED: Do you know the law?
HIS HONOUR: Guess what?
ACCUSED: Do you know the law?
HIS HONOUR: Just listen to me. I run this court, not you.
ACCUSED: No, the people run this court, you’re only a servant of the people. You’re only a servant.
HIS HONOUR: I don’t dispute that, but it’s my court –
ACCUSED: It’s not your court, it’s the people’s court.
HIS HNOUR: -- and I’ll run proceedings.
ACCUSED: Where’s your name on the door? This is a court of the people. Not you.
HIS HONOUR: Now listen to me. I’ll listen to you but there’s one condition, you listen to me. Understood?
ACCUSED: Do you understand?
HIS HONOUR: What?
ACCUSED: Do you understand that I have a right for a trial by jury and that I am –
HIS HONOUR: No you don’t.
ACCUSED: Do you understand?
HIS HONOUR: No you don’t bu anywau listen to me.
ACCUSED: You’re saying I don’t have the right, you mean our right to trial by jury has beenextinguished? By who?
HIS HONOUR: Will you listen to me r I’ll have you removed. It’s that simple.
ACCUSED: I’m challenging the jurisdiction of the court, it’s simple.
HIS HONOUR: Will you listen to me. We are not at that point, right?
ACCUSED: Are we getting there?
HIS HONOUR: Well if you give me an opportunity to speak we might. Finish at 4 o’clock. There are a number of allegations before the court, there are ten allegations of failing to comply with a court order
to furnish a Business activity Statement for the periods September 04, December 04, March 05, June 05, September 05, December 05, March 06, June 06, September 06, December 06. Do you challenge the jurisdiction of the court in respect to those matters?
ACCUSED: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: There is a second set of proceedings –
ACCUSED: That is called subject matter. I challenge the jurisdiction. There are three basic grounds for challenging, one is subject matter, the other is relationship, the other one is competence. I’m challenging on all grounds. Now I’d like those papers stamped and returned to me please.
HIS HONOUR: There is a second set of proceedings, 19 allegations of failing to comply with the requirements to lodge GST returns for the period ending 30 June 2002. Do you challenge the jurisdiction of the court?
ACCUSED: I challenge the jurisdiction of the court to deal with those matters.
DREVER: Sir if I just may interrupt the defendant here. Your Honour in relation to the first set of offences the first charge is – I seek leave to withdraw that charge you Honour so there should be nine offences under s 8H of the taxation Administration Act, and the second set of offences your Honour I have no knowledge of.
HIS HONOUR: In fact –
DREVER: I believe they may be – the offences your Honour referring to in the second set may be the initial conviction which has led to this matter coming before the court again. They related to – were they in court your Honour on 17 December last year?
HIS HONOUR: Yes.
DREVER: Yes your Honour. The defendant was convicted on that occasion and failure to comply with an order made on that occasion means that the matters have come back to court today on a new Court Attendance Notice.
HIS HONOUR: So they’re the allegations under s 8G and s 8H.
DREVER: That’s right your Honour and in relation to the first charge I seek leave to withdraw that first charge, so the matters before the court –
HIS HONOUR: Whish is on or about 18 February 2008 at North Rocks, is that right, is that sequence 1?
DREVER: They all start in that fashion your Honour but it relates to the BAS for the period between 1 July 2004 and 30 September 2004.
HIS HONOUR: All right so, 1(i).
DREVER: That’s right yuor Honour yes.
HIS HONOUR: Why don’t you come and have a seat at the bar table sir. Have a seat over there. Now the prosecutor wants to withdraw sequencenumber 1 sir, which is 1 (i) on the Court attendance Notice. Do you have any objection to that?
ACCUSED: I’m objecting to the jurisdiction of the court.
HIS HONOUR: I understand that but do you have any objection to that charge being withdrawn? How can I determine jurisdiction –
ACCUSED: You can’t detemine anything, you’ve got no jurisdiction.
HIS HONOUR: All right –
ACCUSED: Do you understand? You have no jurisdiction because I have not signed a Memorandum of Consent to say that I would be without a jury. It’s the law. No parliament can take away the rights of the people. Our most important right, the glory of English law, as Blackstone said, the glory of English law is trial by jury.
HIS HONOUR: Have a seat, if you’d like to of course.
ACCUSED: Thank you.
HIS HONOUR: Now where’s these documents you want me to look at?
ACCUSED: Why do you want to look at it, you’ve got no jurisdiction. Yu have no – there is a peremptory stay of proceedings. It’s in that document. Read it.
HIS HONOUR: I just asked to read it and you said I’m not going to.
ACCUSED: Then you are denying not only my rights, legal rights, but also you are denying legal procedure. This is the definition of a kangaroo court. Do you understand that this is a kangaroo court?
HIS HONOUR: No
ACCUSED: It is a kangaroo court because you are disregarding legal rights and you are disregarding legal procedures. My right to trial by jury, you’re disregarding that, this is a legal procedure, challenging
the jurisdiction of the court, you are disregarding that. That is the definition of a kangaroo court.
HIS HONOUR: Do you want me to read your documents or not?
ACCUSED: No. You’ve got no jurisdiction.
HIS HONOUR: Proceed.
DREVER: Yes your Honour.
ACCUSED: You’ve got no authority to proceed. You are in violation of the law.
HIS HONOUR: You just watch it happen around you sir.
ACCUSED: I can’t hear – what?
HIS HONOUR: I said you just watch this all happen around you, you can participate if you want to—
ACCUSED: And you are defying justice, justice is the protection of right and the punishment of wrongs. You are going against justice. You are in contempt of court because contempt of court is interfering with the administration of justice.
DREVER: Your Honour I’ll just get my documents.
HIS HONOUR: Hm-mm.
ACCUSED: We all must know our rights otherwise we have none.
DREVER: Your Honour I have a statement from the ATO office, does your Honour—
ACCUSED: You are not taught in schools—
DREVER: --I’m not sure if the defendant objects—
ACCUSED: --they are relying upon your ignorance. They are getting away with these..(not transcribable).. reports, it is all totally illegal. It is treason in fact. Treason. What these people are doing is treason. They are denying democracy. They are denying trial by jury, that is treason.
HIS HONOUR: One more outburst—
ACCUSED: I’m trying to help you.
HIS HONOUR: One more outburst and I’ll have you removed.
ACCUSED: I’m trying to help you.
HIS HONOUR: No, no, no.
ACCUSED: Yes you are, you’re doing wrong. Do you know the wording of the Bill of Rights? It says, “Even counselor, judges and ministers endeavouring—
HIS HONOUR: Are you going to allow the prosecutor to present her case?
ACCUSED: No because there is no jurisdiction in this court. It’s simple. We have the – there was even a case back in 1824 against the magistrates of Sydney and it came down heavily against the magistrates of Sydney because they were denying ordinary people the right to trial by jury. Have you read that case?
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson I just activated the duress alarm. You’ll be removed in a moment. You are interfering with the processes of this court.
ACCUSED: No I’m not. You are interfering the court—
HIS HONOUR: You just turned your back and addressed the gallery while a prosecutor was speaking—
ACCUSED: Because this is a public court.
HIS HONOUR: I’ve invited you to allow the prosecutor to present her case, she will not do so, I’m going to have you removed.
ACCUSED: I’m denying because they have no jurisdiction. Are you going to get the sheriffs, because the role of the sheriff is to protect our rights and allow us to exercise those rights in safety. That’s the role of the sheriff. Are you going to get the sheriff to disobey his duty.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson, the sheriffs are behind you, I’m going to ask them to remove you—
ACCUSED: Do you know your job?
SPEAKER: You’ll have to come out sir.
ACCUSED: See, a simple question.
HIS HONOUR: I’ve given you many warnings, I’ve given you the opportunity to cease interfering with the processes of this court, you are refusing to do so—
ACCUSED: There is no court of proper jurisdiction. It is a kangaroo court.
SPEAKER: Let’s go out.
ACCUSED: I’ve been in communication with the Sheriff of New South Wales, I got a call – Chris Allen, trying to help him, showing him his own duty of care and he is to protect our rights and what you are doing is denying those rights. It’s a simple case of justice.
SPEAKER: Let’s go, let’s go.
ACCUSED: See they do this all the time, there’s only two sheriffs, normally about five or six. Contact me any time.
HIS HONOUR: Ms Drever?
DREVER: Yes your Honour I have--
HIS HONOUR: You might be able to present your case now.
DREVER: I have my witness here your Honour but would your Honour allow me to tender her statement?
HIS HONOUR: Yes
DREVER: I tender a statement of Elizabeth Vestos(?) of the ATO dated 2 June 2008 and does your Honour wish me to tender a statement of facts at this point?
HIS HONOUR: Yes
DREVER: And the defendant’s record. I tender those documents your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Thanks. Just pardon me while I read that material.
THE MATTER OF COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION AND JOHN WILSON I GRANT LEAVE TO WITHDRAW SEQUENCE 1(i).
I FIND EACH OF THE OTHER ALLEGATIONS PROVED, S 196.
S 25(2) WARRANT TO ISSUE.
oOo
Friday, December 28, 2007
Dear Jim,
Actually, I welcome the "Court Attendance Notices" and tell the Police that I want to go to Court because they are our Courts and that is where we fight for our Rights.
Our enemies fear Juries and have orchestrated the Judiciary into denying us this essential Right. Unless we can smash these Kangaroo Courts, the Banks will continue to destroy us.
Section 92 of the Australian Constitution deals with "the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States..." and has nothing to do with Common Law.
Keep me informed of any actions being taken against you and other "UPMART" clients.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim
To: John Wilson
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: Assaulted and robbed by Police
Hi John,
It appears you have now experienced what some UPMART members - including myself - have gone through in relation to using common law vehicle registration in Victoria, NSW and QLD. Anyone who attempts to exercise their natural human right, common law and federal constitutional (section 92) right of passage and travel in their private motor vehicle without state registration can expect similar or worse treatment.
State police are essentially corporate mercenaries and thugs with little common sense and even less knowledge of the people's rights and liberties. They don't really know what to do with strong willed and determined people like yourself who refuse to be subservient to their delusion of authority and jurisdiction. Thus, they resort to threats, intimidation, coercion and theft of private property in the hope they can break you.
Although I disagree with your strategy of trying to obtain justice in the corrupt "injustice" system, I still applaud your fierce stand in defending your rights. I still continue to drive with my common law vehicle registration plates and am occasionally intercepted by police. However, I don't try and argue with these morons but merely ask questions and demand the fictitious state and its police "public servants" factually prove their unjust laws, authority and jurisdiction over my life and property against my free will and consent. In addition, I carry and use a small audio voice recorder whenever I dialogue with police. It helps to remind them to mind their words and manners!
In most of my confrontations with police they resort to threats, fines, theft of my private plates and various charge and summons to attend court which I have ignored for years. Interestingly, I have not had the police or sheriff follow-up on my disregard and rejection of their delusions of authority. I suspect it's because I don't voluntarily appear in their corporate courts and grant them recognition, consent and jurisdiction over me. You might want to try that some time.
Regards
Jim
Actually, I welcome the "Court Attendance Notices" and tell the Police that I want to go to Court because they are our Courts and that is where we fight for our Rights.
Our enemies fear Juries and have orchestrated the Judiciary into denying us this essential Right. Unless we can smash these Kangaroo Courts, the Banks will continue to destroy us.
Section 92 of the Australian Constitution deals with "the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States..." and has nothing to do with Common Law.
Keep me informed of any actions being taken against you and other "UPMART" clients.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim
To: John Wilson
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: Assaulted and robbed by Police
Hi John,
It appears you have now experienced what some UPMART members - including myself - have gone through in relation to using common law vehicle registration in Victoria, NSW and QLD. Anyone who attempts to exercise their natural human right, common law and federal constitutional (section 92) right of passage and travel in their private motor vehicle without state registration can expect similar or worse treatment.
State police are essentially corporate mercenaries and thugs with little common sense and even less knowledge of the people's rights and liberties. They don't really know what to do with strong willed and determined people like yourself who refuse to be subservient to their delusion of authority and jurisdiction. Thus, they resort to threats, intimidation, coercion and theft of private property in the hope they can break you.
Although I disagree with your strategy of trying to obtain justice in the corrupt "injustice" system, I still applaud your fierce stand in defending your rights. I still continue to drive with my common law vehicle registration plates and am occasionally intercepted by police. However, I don't try and argue with these morons but merely ask questions and demand the fictitious state and its police "public servants" factually prove their unjust laws, authority and jurisdiction over my life and property against my free will and consent. In addition, I carry and use a small audio voice recorder whenever I dialogue with police. It helps to remind them to mind their words and manners!
In most of my confrontations with police they resort to threats, fines, theft of my private plates and various charge and summons to attend court which I have ignored for years. Interestingly, I have not had the police or sheriff follow-up on my disregard and rejection of their delusions of authority. I suspect it's because I don't voluntarily appear in their corporate courts and grant them recognition, consent and jurisdiction over me. You might want to try that some time.
Regards
Jim
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Below you will find the New Cover Letter and Citizen's Affidavit Forms. They have been copy and pasted below for your convenience to copy and paste into what ever Word Program you are using? On the Conference Call tonight we will be going over these next forms to DC for filing. Please be ready to edit these forms and we will start a little after 7:00 PM. central at 712 775 7000, pin no. 776888#. You might take note that the Cover letter needs to be on one page so try and format it properly? Tom Rogers has been sent the new edited forms for posting for download.............
We will also be discussing after getting through the forms the next filing Class Action in the Federal Court of Claims! Here is the link of a past filing of an Class Action suit that the Court has let go forward for Damages! :-) http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Allegra/06/ALLEGRA.Barnes.071706.pdf
Also, PLEASE understand that the Subject Matter for tonights call is these Forms and the Class Action filing! Please hold your conversation about your cases, your cat or dog or you had a flat tire until after we complete the editing and then we will open the call up for other topics? Hopefully it will not be a long night? :-)
Thank you for your support and time!
See yea at 7!!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CITIZEN’S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REFORM
STATE of Pennsylvania )
)
COUNTY of York )
Re: Petition for a Redress of Grievances pursuant to Amendment I to the Constitution of the United States of America, demanding Judicial Reform in conformance with the provisions of that Constitution.
This instrument is lawful notification and is served pursuant with regard to the federal Constitution, specifically, Articles II, III and IV, the Bill of Rights, in particular, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth plus the Fourteenth Amendments, and pursuant to your oath of office.
FIAT JUSTITIA, RUAT CAELUM
May Justice Prevail, Though The Heavens Fall
I, the undersigned _John Doe_ , am of majority age and competent to testify. I do hereby swear and affirm under the penalty for perjury that I have just cause to place or support a PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REFORM and PRIVATE/PUBLIC BILL before our Legislators, and that the averments herein are the TRUTH, the whole truth and not misleading to the best of my knowledge. As one of “Due Process Defenders/We the People” of the United States of America, and the State/Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I submit to the House of Representatives of the United States, that the Judicial Branch of this Nation’s government has been corrupted, compromised, and must as a result be reformed, and/or otherwise restored to its constitutionally empowered status. Due to a history and present performances of ‘Judicial Misconduct’, Ethical and Constitutional violations, Abuse of Power and Criminal Misconduct in and by the courts, and the unwillingness of courts and judges to hold themselves accountable for transgressions against ‘Due Process Defenders/We the People’, a PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REFORM and PRIVATE/PUBLIC BILL, is the one and most obvious recourse left to the people, to seek a Redress of Grievances and a “Constitutional” remedy for the problem.
In support of the PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REFORM and PRIVATE/PUBLIC BILL I do hereby swear and aver as follows:
That the courts of my district and/or inferior courts, ordained and established under authority of Congress have a DUTY under the Constitution and/or Delegation of Authority to exercise any and all judicial or administrative functions of the courts in accordance and conformance with the terms and conditions established by the Constitution and Laws of the United States.
That the Constitution and Laws of the United States secures to all Citizens of the several States the “Privileges and Immunities” of the Citizens of the several States as enumerated in that Constitution.
That the courts have two primary duties: to protect the rights of Citizens from an oppressive government and to search for TRUTH.
That the courts of my district, ordained and established under authority of Congress, have failed to protect the “Privileges and Immunities” my rights and other Citizens of the several States.
That the courts of my district have failed to police the judicial conduct of inferior courts ordained and established in the States under authority of Congress, which inferior courts have systemically and systematically deprived myself and other citizens of the several states of “Privileges and Immunities” rights secured to all Citizens under the Constitution and Laws of the United States, violating their DUTY to perform the duties of office with due diligence.
That judges in the courts of my district and/or inferior courts as described above perform the duties of their office with absolute disregard for their Oath of Office, an oath that requires each judge to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
That judges in the courts of my district and/or inferior courts as described above engage and have engaged in conduct averse to their duty to protect the constitutional rights of Citizens, and knowingly and intentionally obstruct the search for TRUTH and FACT.
That judges in the courts of my district and/or inferior courts, as described above engage and/or have engaged in conduct averse to the requirements of Honesty and Integrity, fundamental requirements for their office of TRUST before ‘Due Process Defenders/We the People’.
That judges in the courts of my district and/or inferior courts, as described above engage and/or have engaged in corrupt acts or practices, for which disciplinary action is necessary, including impeachment.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines:
CORRUPTION: An act done with an intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. The act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.
That judges in the courts of my district and/or inferior courts as described above engage and/or have engaged in criminal acts, including tampering with official records to deprive myself and other Citizens of the several States of “Privileges and Immunities” secured to all Citizens under the Constitution and Laws of the United States and State-Sanctioned ‘Theft Under Color of Law’, in a ‘RACKETEERING,’ ‘FRAUD UPON THE COURT,’ and violations to ‘ANTI-TRUST’ laws schema.
That judges in the courts of my district and/or inferior courts, as described above engage and/or have engaged in a “pattern and practice” of violating their oaths of office; of depriving Citizens of the several States of “Privileges and Immunities” rights; by violating the Code of Judicial Conduct; and of commiting criminal acts not limited to crimes specifically described in 18 USC 241 and 242.
That judges in the courts of my district and/or inferior courts, as described above engage and/or have engaged in a “pattern and practice” of corrupt acts or practices, neglect of duty and/or malfeasance of office sufficient to require disciplinary action against them, including removal from office via impeachment proceedings, and/or investigative action and possible criminal prosecution.
That in the State cases in Commonwealth Court, Superiour Court and York County Court of Common Pleas York County, Pennsylvania, civil Docket Nos. 00-02472 thru and including 07-06399 and criminal Docket Nos. 1156-04 , SA-0354-07 and others as indexed in this public record, United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #:03-cv-05596-AH, 05cv09324, 06-cv03678 and others as indexed.; a judge or judges: arbitrarily violate the Rules of Court (Rules of Civil Procedure); conduct alleged “hearings” where the outcome is pre-determined [“fixed”]; enter orders that commit State-Sanctioned Stealing; commit acts of terrorism via threats and intimidation of Citizens, etc.; commit acts of terrorism via unlawful eviction; intentionally violate the “Privileges and Immunities” of Citizens of the several States (Commonwealth); fail to timely ‘rule’ on motions adverse to the pre-determined “winner” of litigation; exercise egregious DISHONESTY; violate their Oaths of Office and the Code of Judicial Conduct; deprive Citizens of rights secured to all Citizens under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; commit acts “at war” with the Constitution of the United States; and more.
That in State cases in Commonwealth Court, Superiour Court and York County Court of Common Pleas York County, Pennsylvania, civil Docket Nos. 00-02472 thru and including 07-06399 and criminal Docket Nos. 1156-04 , SA-0354-07 and others as indexed in this public record, United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #:03-cv-05596-AH, 05cv09324, 06-cv03678 and others as indexed, a judge or judges: arbitrarily violate the Rules of Court (F.R.C.P.); conduct alleged “hearings” where the outcome is pre-determined [“fixed”]; fail to provide evidentiary support for an order; intentionally violate the “Privileges and Immunities” of Citizens of the several States (Commonwealth); fail to timely ‘rule’ on motions adverse to the pre-determined “winner” of litigation; exercise egregious DISHONESTY; violate their Oaths of Office and the Code of Judicial Conduct; commit acts at war with the Constitution of the United States; deprive Citizens of rights secured to all Citizens under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and more.
That in the State cases in Commonwealth Court, Superiour Court and York County Court of Common Pleas York County, Pennsylvania, civil Docket Nos. 00-02472 thru and including 07-06399 and criminal Docket Nos. 1156-04 , SA-0354-07 and others as indexed in this public record, United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #:03-cv-05596-AH, 05cv09324, 06-cv03678 and others as indexed, a judge or judges: arbitrarily violate the Rules of Court (F.R.C.P.); conduct alleged “hearings” where the outcome is pre-determined [“fixed”]; are accomplices to the criminal act of entering false claims and counterfeit securites into the record and the case; misrepresent fact and Law to the appellate court enter orders that commit State-Sanctioned Theft; commit perjury and subornation of perjury; withhold “appeals” from the appellate court; intentionally enter criminally corrupt orders contrary to Law; intentionally violate the “Privileges and Immunities” of Citizens of the several States (Commonwealth); fail to timely ‘rule’ on motions adverse to the pre-determined “winner” of litigation; exercise egregious DISHONESTY; violate their Oaths of Office and the Code of Judicial Conduct; commit acts at war with the Constitution of the United States; deprive Citizens of rights secured to all Citizens under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the Unites States; and more.
That “Justice Delayed is Justice Denied”.
That in these courts and the Court of Common Pleas of other Pennsylvania counties, a judge or judges engage in the same corrupt acts or practices as noted for State cases Commonwealth Court, Superiour Court and York County Court of Common Pleas York County, Pennsylvania, civil Docket Nos. 00-02472 thru and including 07-06399 and criminal Docket Nos. 1156-04 , SA-0354-07 and others as indexed in this public record, United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #:03-cv-05596-AH, 05cv09324, 06-cv03678 and others as indexed, including intentional “delays” of hearings to DENY Citizens of the several States access to the courts and thereby DENY JUSTICE to these Citizens.
That Due Process Defenders/We the People have a right to TRUST, courts ordained and established under Congressional delegation of authority, will conduct the business of the courts in accordance and compliance with the Constitution and Laws of the United States.
That judges, who knowingly and intentionally violate their oath of office to violate the TRUST of Due Process Defenders/We the People and thereby commit “Crimes Against the People,” must be addressed for the sake and preservation of our nation and government.
That this Congress has a DUTY under the Constitution to investigate the charges brought forth, and to institute Judicial Reform as needed to restore Integrity and Honesty to courts of Law, so as to establish jurisdiction and validity.
That the members of The House of Representatives, have a DUTY under their oaths of office to investigate and to prosecute where appropriate, those judges who fail to conduct the business of the courts in accordance with the Constitution and Laws of the United States; and/or who violate the Constitutional rights of Citizens of the several States, and/or who have committed criminal acts in violation of the TRUST of Due Process Defenders/We the People.
After this, Affiant Sayeth naught.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
VERIFICATION OF TRUTH
I, John Doe, hereby verify that the statements of fact and averments contained in this instrument are true and correct, materially complete and not misleading to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I consent to the penalty for perjury if this document contains any knowingly false statements or allegations, pursuant to my sincerely held religious beliefs and spiritual training and as expressed in the Ninth Commandment. (Exodus 20:16)
Dated: This fourteenth day of the eleventh month, anno Domini: Two thousand and seven: Two thousand and seven {November 14, AD2007} in New York, York County, Pennsylvania.
Signed: ______________________________________
John Doe
123 Justice Drive
New York, Pennsylvania 16500
815-555-5555
_________________________________________
Witness 1
_________________________________________
Witness 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, I, John Doe / Expressed Procurator herewith give my authorization and consent to any member of Congress and/or his designate staff assistant, to make a proper inquiry on my behalf (i.p.j.) concerning the appended Private/Public Bill. The U.S. Congress’ Enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1988, codifies the ‘private attorney general’ principle, which “offer” is herewith accepted on behalf of injured party John Doe / “private attorney general”, hereafter “Doe” in pursuing action on this appended Private/Public Bill, which is sponsored by a representative, who has actual authority to bind the government based upon oath and federal, as well as constitutional mandates. A Private/Public Bill is an Act considered or acted upon by the legislature, that helps a single individual or group of citizens by: affording relief from another law; granting a unique benefit; or relieving the individual from legal responsibility for some allegedly wrongful act not otherwise available through statute or the common law, including an alleged or imposed “lack of contract with the government,” culminating in a breech of fiduciary duty and lawful mandates, because of failure to prove a contract and/or to enforce lawful standards by those bearing a requirement so to do, under the four necessary elements thereto. This notice and acceptance of a filing fee creates and solidifies a contract with government for past, present, or future actions, as well as providing written evidence of violations to ALL legal standards contractual or inherent by nature to each citizen via the Constitution and Laws of this Nation, which afford a government of standing, any contractual relationship/basis, or ownership interest in for those bearing a fiduciary, lawful, or representative position of standing.
Private/Public bills shall be accepted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1492 and 2509 as amended by the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982, which authorizes (s.m.j.) either house of Congress to refer bills to the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims for investigation, and report to the appropriate house as a means of obtaining redress of grievances for an individual or individuals.
On Wednesday, November 14, 2007, Doe had process server Eugene Wrona or Michael Norley serve and file with the HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE at the Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC, 20515, a copy of a Private Bill for relief of Doe, a copy being delivered to Burt Wides, Esquire, Attorney for the House Judiciary Committee, and to Chris Cannon, Representative, 3rd District of Utah.
The Private/Public Bill for relief is filed related or pertaining to Pennsylvania, civil
Dockets as indexed in these public records, United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) as indexed in this public record, et al as shown in the appended Private/Public Bill; the docket numbers can be verified at the locations stated. The Private/Public Bill affirms evidence of multiple constitutional violations, which inflicts irreparable harm on Citizens of the several States and upon Palmerton. The Private/Public Bill may identify acts prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 1961 through 18 U.S.C. § 1968 and by enforcement, commiting the undersigned into “involutary servitude” pursuant to 18 PaCS § 2902 under “full faith and credit”. See also 8 U.S.C. § 1481.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature ___________________________
John Doe
123 Justice Drive
New York, Pennsylvania 16500
815-555-5555
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CW
www.JudicialJustice.us
www.PrivateAttorneyGeneral.us
Below you will find the New Cover Letter and Citizen's Affidavit Forms. They have been copy and pasted below for your convenience to copy and paste into what ever Word Program you are using? On the Conference Call tonight we will be going over these next forms to DC for filing. Please be ready to edit these forms and we will start a little after 7:00 PM. central at 712 775 7000, pin no. 776888#. You might take note that the Cover letter needs to be on one page so try and format it properly? Tom Rogers has been sent the new edited forms for posting for download.............
We will also be discussing after getting through the forms the next filing Class Action in the Federal Court of Claims! Here is the link of a past filing of an Class Action suit that the Court has let go forward for Damages! :-) http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Allegra/06/ALLEGRA.Barnes.071706.pdf
Also, PLEASE understand that the Subject Matter for tonights call is these Forms and the Class Action filing! Please hold your conversation about your cases, your cat or dog or you had a flat tire until after we complete the editing and then we will open the call up for other topics? Hopefully it will not be a long night? :-)
Thank you for your support and time!
See yea at 7!!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CITIZEN’S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REFORM
STATE of Pennsylvania )
)
COUNTY of York )
Re: Petition for a Redress of Grievances pursuant to Amendment I to the Constitution of the United States of America, demanding Judicial Reform in conformance with the provisions of that Constitution.
This instrument is lawful notification and is served pursuant with regard to the federal Constitution, specifically, Articles II, III and IV, the Bill of Rights, in particular, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth plus the Fourteenth Amendments, and pursuant to your oath of office.
FIAT JUSTITIA, RUAT CAELUM
May Justice Prevail, Though The Heavens Fall
I, the undersigned _John Doe_ , am of majority age and competent to testify. I do hereby swear and affirm under the penalty for perjury that I have just cause to place or support a PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REFORM and PRIVATE/PUBLIC BILL before our Legislators, and that the averments herein are the TRUTH, the whole truth and not misleading to the best of my knowledge. As one of “Due Process Defenders/We the People” of the United States of America, and the State/Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I submit to the House of Representatives of the United States, that the Judicial Branch of this Nation’s government has been corrupted, compromised, and must as a result be reformed, and/or otherwise restored to its constitutionally empowered status. Due to a history and present performances of ‘Judicial Misconduct’, Ethical and Constitutional violations, Abuse of Power and Criminal Misconduct in and by the courts, and the unwillingness of courts and judges to hold themselves accountable for transgressions against ‘Due Process Defenders/We the People’, a PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REFORM and PRIVATE/PUBLIC BILL, is the one and most obvious recourse left to the people, to seek a Redress of Grievances and a “Constitutional” remedy for the problem.
In support of the PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REFORM and PRIVATE/PUBLIC BILL I do hereby swear and aver as follows:
That the courts of my district and/or inferior courts, ordained and established under authority of Congress have a DUTY under the Constitution and/or Delegation of Authority to exercise any and all judicial or administrative functions of the courts in accordance and conformance with the terms and conditions established by the Constitution and Laws of the United States.
That the Constitution and Laws of the United States secures to all Citizens of the several States the “Privileges and Immunities” of the Citizens of the several States as enumerated in that Constitution.
That the courts have two primary duties: to protect the rights of Citizens from an oppressive government and to search for TRUTH.
That the courts of my district, ordained and established under authority of Congress, have failed to protect the “Privileges and Immunities” my rights and other Citizens of the several States.
That the courts of my district have failed to police the judicial conduct of inferior courts ordained and established in the States under authority of Congress, which inferior courts have systemically and systematically deprived myself and other citizens of the several states of “Privileges and Immunities” rights secured to all Citizens under the Constitution and Laws of the United States, violating their DUTY to perform the duties of office with due diligence.
That judges in the courts of my district and/or inferior courts as described above perform the duties of their office with absolute disregard for their Oath of Office, an oath that requires each judge to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
That judges in the courts of my district and/or inferior courts as described above engage and have engaged in conduct averse to their duty to protect the constitutional rights of Citizens, and knowingly and intentionally obstruct the search for TRUTH and FACT.
That judges in the courts of my district and/or inferior courts, as described above engage and/or have engaged in conduct averse to the requirements of Honesty and Integrity, fundamental requirements for their office of TRUST before ‘Due Process Defenders/We the People’.
That judges in the courts of my district and/or inferior courts, as described above engage and/or have engaged in corrupt acts or practices, for which disciplinary action is necessary, including impeachment.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines:
CORRUPTION: An act done with an intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. The act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.
That judges in the courts of my district and/or inferior courts as described above engage and/or have engaged in criminal acts, including tampering with official records to deprive myself and other Citizens of the several States of “Privileges and Immunities” secured to all Citizens under the Constitution and Laws of the United States and State-Sanctioned ‘Theft Under Color of Law’, in a ‘RACKETEERING,’ ‘FRAUD UPON THE COURT,’ and violations to ‘ANTI-TRUST’ laws schema.
That judges in the courts of my district and/or inferior courts, as described above engage and/or have engaged in a “pattern and practice” of violating their oaths of office; of depriving Citizens of the several States of “Privileges and Immunities” rights; by violating the Code of Judicial Conduct; and of commiting criminal acts not limited to crimes specifically described in 18 USC 241 and 242.
That judges in the courts of my district and/or inferior courts, as described above engage and/or have engaged in a “pattern and practice” of corrupt acts or practices, neglect of duty and/or malfeasance of office sufficient to require disciplinary action against them, including removal from office via impeachment proceedings, and/or investigative action and possible criminal prosecution.
That in the State cases in Commonwealth Court, Superiour Court and York County Court of Common Pleas York County, Pennsylvania, civil Docket Nos. 00-02472 thru and including 07-06399 and criminal Docket Nos. 1156-04 , SA-0354-07 and others as indexed in this public record, United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #:03-cv-05596-AH, 05cv09324, 06-cv03678 and others as indexed.; a judge or judges: arbitrarily violate the Rules of Court (Rules of Civil Procedure); conduct alleged “hearings” where the outcome is pre-determined [“fixed”]; enter orders that commit State-Sanctioned Stealing; commit acts of terrorism via threats and intimidation of Citizens, etc.; commit acts of terrorism via unlawful eviction; intentionally violate the “Privileges and Immunities” of Citizens of the several States (Commonwealth); fail to timely ‘rule’ on motions adverse to the pre-determined “winner” of litigation; exercise egregious DISHONESTY; violate their Oaths of Office and the Code of Judicial Conduct; deprive Citizens of rights secured to all Citizens under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; commit acts “at war” with the Constitution of the United States; and more.
That in State cases in Commonwealth Court, Superiour Court and York County Court of Common Pleas York County, Pennsylvania, civil Docket Nos. 00-02472 thru and including 07-06399 and criminal Docket Nos. 1156-04 , SA-0354-07 and others as indexed in this public record, United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #:03-cv-05596-AH, 05cv09324, 06-cv03678 and others as indexed, a judge or judges: arbitrarily violate the Rules of Court (F.R.C.P.); conduct alleged “hearings” where the outcome is pre-determined [“fixed”]; fail to provide evidentiary support for an order; intentionally violate the “Privileges and Immunities” of Citizens of the several States (Commonwealth); fail to timely ‘rule’ on motions adverse to the pre-determined “winner” of litigation; exercise egregious DISHONESTY; violate their Oaths of Office and the Code of Judicial Conduct; commit acts at war with the Constitution of the United States; deprive Citizens of rights secured to all Citizens under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and more.
That in the State cases in Commonwealth Court, Superiour Court and York County Court of Common Pleas York County, Pennsylvania, civil Docket Nos. 00-02472 thru and including 07-06399 and criminal Docket Nos. 1156-04 , SA-0354-07 and others as indexed in this public record, United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #:03-cv-05596-AH, 05cv09324, 06-cv03678 and others as indexed, a judge or judges: arbitrarily violate the Rules of Court (F.R.C.P.); conduct alleged “hearings” where the outcome is pre-determined [“fixed”]; are accomplices to the criminal act of entering false claims and counterfeit securites into the record and the case; misrepresent fact and Law to the appellate court enter orders that commit State-Sanctioned Theft; commit perjury and subornation of perjury; withhold “appeals” from the appellate court; intentionally enter criminally corrupt orders contrary to Law; intentionally violate the “Privileges and Immunities” of Citizens of the several States (Commonwealth); fail to timely ‘rule’ on motions adverse to the pre-determined “winner” of litigation; exercise egregious DISHONESTY; violate their Oaths of Office and the Code of Judicial Conduct; commit acts at war with the Constitution of the United States; deprive Citizens of rights secured to all Citizens under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the Unites States; and more.
That “Justice Delayed is Justice Denied”.
That in these courts and the Court of Common Pleas of other Pennsylvania counties, a judge or judges engage in the same corrupt acts or practices as noted for State cases Commonwealth Court, Superiour Court and York County Court of Common Pleas York County, Pennsylvania, civil Docket Nos. 00-02472 thru and including 07-06399 and criminal Docket Nos. 1156-04 , SA-0354-07 and others as indexed in this public record, United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #:03-cv-05596-AH, 05cv09324, 06-cv03678 and others as indexed, including intentional “delays” of hearings to DENY Citizens of the several States access to the courts and thereby DENY JUSTICE to these Citizens.
That Due Process Defenders/We the People have a right to TRUST, courts ordained and established under Congressional delegation of authority, will conduct the business of the courts in accordance and compliance with the Constitution and Laws of the United States.
That judges, who knowingly and intentionally violate their oath of office to violate the TRUST of Due Process Defenders/We the People and thereby commit “Crimes Against the People,” must be addressed for the sake and preservation of our nation and government.
That this Congress has a DUTY under the Constitution to investigate the charges brought forth, and to institute Judicial Reform as needed to restore Integrity and Honesty to courts of Law, so as to establish jurisdiction and validity.
That the members of The House of Representatives, have a DUTY under their oaths of office to investigate and to prosecute where appropriate, those judges who fail to conduct the business of the courts in accordance with the Constitution and Laws of the United States; and/or who violate the Constitutional rights of Citizens of the several States, and/or who have committed criminal acts in violation of the TRUST of Due Process Defenders/We the People.
After this, Affiant Sayeth naught.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
VERIFICATION OF TRUTH
I, John Doe, hereby verify that the statements of fact and averments contained in this instrument are true and correct, materially complete and not misleading to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I consent to the penalty for perjury if this document contains any knowingly false statements or allegations, pursuant to my sincerely held religious beliefs and spiritual training and as expressed in the Ninth Commandment. (Exodus 20:16)
Dated: This fourteenth day of the eleventh month, anno Domini: Two thousand and seven: Two thousand and seven {November 14, AD2007} in New York, York County, Pennsylvania.
Signed: ______________________________________
John Doe
123 Justice Drive
New York, Pennsylvania 16500
815-555-5555
_________________________________________
Witness 1
_________________________________________
Witness 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, I, John Doe / Expressed Procurator herewith give my authorization and consent to any member of Congress and/or his designate staff assistant, to make a proper inquiry on my behalf (i.p.j.) concerning the appended Private/Public Bill. The U.S. Congress’ Enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1988, codifies the ‘private attorney general’ principle, which “offer” is herewith accepted on behalf of injured party John Doe / “private attorney general”, hereafter “Doe” in pursuing action on this appended Private/Public Bill, which is sponsored by a representative, who has actual authority to bind the government based upon oath and federal, as well as constitutional mandates. A Private/Public Bill is an Act considered or acted upon by the legislature, that helps a single individual or group of citizens by: affording relief from another law; granting a unique benefit; or relieving the individual from legal responsibility for some allegedly wrongful act not otherwise available through statute or the common law, including an alleged or imposed “lack of contract with the government,” culminating in a breech of fiduciary duty and lawful mandates, because of failure to prove a contract and/or to enforce lawful standards by those bearing a requirement so to do, under the four necessary elements thereto. This notice and acceptance of a filing fee creates and solidifies a contract with government for past, present, or future actions, as well as providing written evidence of violations to ALL legal standards contractual or inherent by nature to each citizen via the Constitution and Laws of this Nation, which afford a government of standing, any contractual relationship/basis, or ownership interest in for those bearing a fiduciary, lawful, or representative position of standing.
Private/Public bills shall be accepted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1492 and 2509 as amended by the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982, which authorizes (s.m.j.) either house of Congress to refer bills to the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims for investigation, and report to the appropriate house as a means of obtaining redress of grievances for an individual or individuals.
On Wednesday, November 14, 2007, Doe had process server Eugene Wrona or Michael Norley serve and file with the HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE at the Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC, 20515, a copy of a Private Bill for relief of Doe, a copy being delivered to Burt Wides, Esquire, Attorney for the House Judiciary Committee, and to Chris Cannon, Representative, 3rd District of Utah.
The Private/Public Bill for relief is filed related or pertaining to Pennsylvania, civil
Dockets as indexed in these public records, United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) as indexed in this public record, et al as shown in the appended Private/Public Bill; the docket numbers can be verified at the locations stated. The Private/Public Bill affirms evidence of multiple constitutional violations, which inflicts irreparable harm on Citizens of the several States and upon Palmerton. The Private/Public Bill may identify acts prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 1961 through 18 U.S.C. § 1968 and by enforcement, commiting the undersigned into “involutary servitude” pursuant to 18 PaCS § 2902 under “full faith and credit”. See also 8 U.S.C. § 1481.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature ___________________________
John Doe
123 Justice Drive
New York, Pennsylvania 16500
815-555-5555
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CW
www.JudicialJustice.us
www.PrivateAttorneyGeneral.us
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Dear Lovey,
Yes, we have Hansard for records of Parliamentary debates. Similarly, "Royal Assent" from the Governor-General and State Governors is a nonsense because QE2 has no executive powers exercisable in the Commonwealth of Australia (she being the Head of State of a foreign power, ie: the UK) and there are no Orders In Council from the Privy Council for their appointments, anyway and rightly so.
It's all one bug bluff...enforced by thuggery.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lovey Cridge
To: John Wilson
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: ATRG update for John
Hi John!
We in Canada have House Of Commons Debates recorded. It is called a Hansard. Do you have such an animal?
I did alot of research into the income tax act and discovered that it is not legislated properly. Halsbury states that if an act does not have royal assent it can be impeached. So, - I went to both the Simon Fraser and University of B.C., to get my info. Reading the 1st line of the 1985 Revised Statutes of the income tax act, it reads - This act revises the 1952 revised statutes. So I go to the 1952 revised statutes to see what it had to say. the 1952 RS reads this act revises 1948 chapter 52. Okay , so I go looking for 1948 Ch 52. Found it in the Hansards. But in 1948 we still had the Income War Tax Act, hmm 2 taxes?? Go look what the Governor General has to say in 1948. Oh, the GG's throne speech stated revise the existing act not create a new act. Then look for the Canada Gazette, as all acts must be posted in the Gazette before it can be activated. Well, well. it is not posted in the Gazette, nor does it have the royal assent. So. it is not legislated properly. It is null and void. Do you have anything similar to Canada?
Lovey
----- Original Message -----
From: Gee Temp
To: "Undisclosed-Recipient:;"@mail.wide.net.au
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 10:35 AM
Subject: Kennedy Killed by The Bankers
President Kennedy, the Federal Reserve and Executive Order 11110
by Cedric X
From The Final Call, Vol15, No.6, on January 17, 1996 (USA)
On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest. On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Mr. Kennedy's order gave the Treasury the power "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this bill are enormous.
With the stroke of a pen, Mr. Kennedy was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank of New York out of business. If enough of these silver certificates were to come into circulation they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes. This is because the silver certificates are backed by silver and the Federal Reserve notes are not backed by anything. Executive Order 11110 could have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level, because it would have given the government the ability to repay its debt without going to the Federal Reserve and being charged interest in order to create the new money. Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S. the ability to create its own money backed by silver.
After Mr. Kennedy was assassinated just five months later, no more silver certificates were issued. The Final Call has learned that the Executive Order was never repealed by any U.S. President through an Executive Order and is still valid. Why then has no president utilized it? Virtually all of the nearly $6 trillion in debt has been created since 1963, and if a U.S. president had utilized Executive Order 11110 the debt would be nowhere near the current level. Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to future presidents who would think to eliminate the U.S. debt by eliminating the Federal Reserve's control over the creation of money. Mr. Kennedy challenged the government of money by challenging the two most successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up debt - war and the creation of money by a privately-owned central bank. His efforts to have all troops out of Vietnam by 1965 and Executive Order 11110 would have severely cut into the profits and control of the New York banking establishment. As America's debt reaches unbearable levels and a conflict emerges in Bosnia that will further increase America's debt, one is force to ask, will President Clinton have the courage to consider utilizing Executive Order 11110 and, if so, is he willing to pay the ultimate price for doing so?
Executive Order 11110 AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289
AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:
Section 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended-
By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j):
(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12,1933, as amended (31 U.S.C.821(b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denomination of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption
and --
By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof.
Sec. 2. The amendments made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made.
John F. Kennedy The White House, June 4, 1963.
Of course, the fact that both JFK and Lincoln met the the same end is a mere coincidence.
Abraham Lincoln's Monetary Policy, 1865 (Page 91 of Senate document 23.)
Money is the creature of law and the creation of the original issue of money should be maintained as the exclusive monopoly of national Government.
Money possesses no value to the State other than that given to it by circulation.
Capital has its proper place and is entitled to every protection. The wages of men should be recognised in the structure of and in the social order as more important than the wages of money.
No duty is more imperative for the Government than the duty it owes the People to furnish them with a sound and uniform currency, and of regulating the circulation of the medium of exchange so that labour will be protected from a vicious currency, and commerce will be facilitated by cheap and safe exchanges.
The available supply of Gold and Silver being wholly inadequate to permit the issuance of coins of intrinsic value or paper currency convertible into coin in the volume required to serve the needs of the People, some other basis for the issue of currency must be developed, and some means other than that of convertibility into coin must be developed to prevent undue fluctuation in the value of paper currency or any other substitute for money of intrinsic value that may come into use.
The monetary needs of increasing numbers of People advancing towards higher standards of living can and should be met by the Government. Such needs can be served by the issue of National Currency and Credit through the operation of a National Banking system .The circulation of a medium of exchange issued and backed by the Government can be properly regulated and redundancy of issue avoided by withdrawing from circulation such amounts as may be necessary by Taxation, Redeposit, and otherwise. Government has the power to regulate the currency and creditof the Nation.
Government should stand behind its currency and credit and the Bank deposits of the Nation. No individual should suffer a loss of money through depreciation or inflated currency or Bank bankruptcy.
Government possessing the power to create and issue currency and credits money and enjoying the right to withdraw both currency and credit from circulation by Taxation and otherwise need not and should not borrow capital at interest as a means of financing Governmental work and public enterprise. The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of the consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Governments greatest creative opportunity.
By the adoption of these principles the long felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts, and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprise, the maintenance of stable Government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own Government. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power.
Some information on the Federal Reserve The Federal Reserve, a Private Corporation One of the most common concerns among people who engage in any effort to reduce their taxes is, "Will keeping my money hurt the government's ability to pay it's bills?" As explained in the first article in this series, the modern withholding tax does not, and wasn't designed to, pay for government services. What it does do, is pay for the privately-owned Federal Reserve System.
Black's Law Dictionary defines the "Federal Reserve System" as, "Network of twelve central banks to which most national banks belong and to which state chartered banks may belong. Membership rules require investment of stock and minimum reserves."
Privately-owned banks own the stock of the Fed. This was explained in more detail in the case of Lewis v. United States, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 680, Pages 1239, 1241 (1982), where the court said:
Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stock-holding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors.
Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Taking another look at Black's Law Dictionary, we find that these privately owned banks actually issue money:
Federal Reserve Act. Law which created Federal Reserve banks which act as agents in maintaining money reserves, issuing money in the form of bank notes, lending money to banks, and supervising banks. Administered by Federal Reserve Board (q.v.).
The FED banks, which are privately owned, actually issue, that is, create, the money we use. In 1964 the House Committee on Banking and Currency, Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, at the second session of the 88th Congress, put out a study entitled Money Facts which contains a good description of what the FED is:
The Federal Reserve is a total money-making machine. It can issue money or checks. And it never has a problem of making its checks good because it can obtain the $5 and $10 bills necessary to cover its check simply by asking the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving to print them.
As we all know, anyone who has a lot of money has a lot of power. Now imagine a group of people who have the power to create money. Imagine the power these people would have. This is what the Fed is.
No man did more to expose the power of the Fed than Louis T. McFadden, who was the Chairman of the House Banking Committee back in the 1930s. Constantly pointing out that monetary issues shouldn't be partisan, he criticized both the Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt administrations. In describing the Fed, he remarked in the Congressional Record, House pages 1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932, that:
Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has cheated the Government of the United States and he people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the maladministration of that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.
Some people think the Federal reserve banks are United States Government institutions. They are not Government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into States to buy votes to control our legislation; and there are those who maintain an international propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us and of wheedling us into the granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime. Those 12 private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this country by bankers who came here from Europe and who repaid us for our hospitality by undermining our American institutions.
The Fed basically works like this: The government granted its power to create money to the Fed banks. They create money, then loan it back to the government charging interest. The government levies income taxes to pay the interest on the debt. On this point, it's interesting to note that the Federal Reserve act and the sixteenth amendment, which gave congress the power to collect income taxes, were both passed in 1913. The incredible power of the Fed over the economy is universally admitted. Some people, especially in the banking and academic communities, even support it. On the other hand, there are those, both in the past and in the present, that speak out against it. One of these men was President John F. Kennedy. His efforts were detailed in Jim Marrs' 1990 book, Crossfire:
Another overlooked aspect of Kennedy's attempt to reform American society involves money. Kennedy apparently reasoned that by returning to the constitution, which states that only Congress shall coin and regulate money, the soaring national debt could be reduced by not paying interest to the bankers of the Federal Reserve System, who print paper money then loan it to the government at interest. He moved in this area on June 4, 1963, by signing Executive Order 11,110 which called for the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in United States Notes through the U.S. Treasury rather than the traditional Federal Reserve System. That same day, Kennedy signed a bill changing the backing of one and two dollar bills from silver to gold, adding strength to the weakened U.S. currency.
Kennedy's comptroller of the currency, James J. Saxon, had been at odds with the powerful Federal Reserve Board for some time, encouraging broader investment and lending powers for banks that were not part of the Federal Reserve system. Saxon also had decided that non-Reserve banks could underwrite state and local general obligation bonds, again weakening the dominant Federal Reserve banks.
A number of "Kennedy bills" were indeed issued - the author has a five dollar bill in his possession with the heading "United States Note" - but were quickly withdrawn after Kennedy's death. According to information from the Library of the Comptroller of the Currency, Executive Order 11,110 remains in effect today, although successive administrations beginning with that of President Lyndon Johnson apparently have simply ignored it and instead returned to the practice of paying interest on Federal Reserve notes. Today we continue to use Federal Reserve Notes, and the deficit is at an all-time high.
The point being made is that the IRS taxes you pay aren't used for government services. It won't hurt you, or the nation, to legally reduce or eliminate your tax liability.
www.whatreallyhappened.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abolish the Federal Reserve (by Congressman Ron Paul)
The Rockefeller Fortunes
The Creature from Jekyll Island
U.S. is in Deep Doodoo!
__________ NOD32 2683 (20071124) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
Yes, we have Hansard for records of Parliamentary debates. Similarly, "Royal Assent" from the Governor-General and State Governors is a nonsense because QE2 has no executive powers exercisable in the Commonwealth of Australia (she being the Head of State of a foreign power, ie: the UK) and there are no Orders In Council from the Privy Council for their appointments, anyway and rightly so.
It's all one bug bluff...enforced by thuggery.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lovey Cridge
To: John Wilson
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: ATRG update for John
Hi John!
We in Canada have House Of Commons Debates recorded. It is called a Hansard. Do you have such an animal?
I did alot of research into the income tax act and discovered that it is not legislated properly. Halsbury states that if an act does not have royal assent it can be impeached. So, - I went to both the Simon Fraser and University of B.C., to get my info. Reading the 1st line of the 1985 Revised Statutes of the income tax act, it reads - This act revises the 1952 revised statutes. So I go to the 1952 revised statutes to see what it had to say. the 1952 RS reads this act revises 1948 chapter 52. Okay , so I go looking for 1948 Ch 52. Found it in the Hansards. But in 1948 we still had the Income War Tax Act, hmm 2 taxes?? Go look what the Governor General has to say in 1948. Oh, the GG's throne speech stated revise the existing act not create a new act. Then look for the Canada Gazette, as all acts must be posted in the Gazette before it can be activated. Well, well. it is not posted in the Gazette, nor does it have the royal assent. So. it is not legislated properly. It is null and void. Do you have anything similar to Canada?
Lovey
----- Original Message -----
From: Gee Temp
To: "Undisclosed-Recipient:;"@mail.wide.net.au
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 10:35 AM
Subject: Kennedy Killed by The Bankers
President Kennedy, the Federal Reserve and Executive Order 11110
by Cedric X
From The Final Call, Vol15, No.6, on January 17, 1996 (USA)
On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest. On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Mr. Kennedy's order gave the Treasury the power "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this bill are enormous.
With the stroke of a pen, Mr. Kennedy was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank of New York out of business. If enough of these silver certificates were to come into circulation they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes. This is because the silver certificates are backed by silver and the Federal Reserve notes are not backed by anything. Executive Order 11110 could have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level, because it would have given the government the ability to repay its debt without going to the Federal Reserve and being charged interest in order to create the new money. Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S. the ability to create its own money backed by silver.
After Mr. Kennedy was assassinated just five months later, no more silver certificates were issued. The Final Call has learned that the Executive Order was never repealed by any U.S. President through an Executive Order and is still valid. Why then has no president utilized it? Virtually all of the nearly $6 trillion in debt has been created since 1963, and if a U.S. president had utilized Executive Order 11110 the debt would be nowhere near the current level. Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to future presidents who would think to eliminate the U.S. debt by eliminating the Federal Reserve's control over the creation of money. Mr. Kennedy challenged the government of money by challenging the two most successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up debt - war and the creation of money by a privately-owned central bank. His efforts to have all troops out of Vietnam by 1965 and Executive Order 11110 would have severely cut into the profits and control of the New York banking establishment. As America's debt reaches unbearable levels and a conflict emerges in Bosnia that will further increase America's debt, one is force to ask, will President Clinton have the courage to consider utilizing Executive Order 11110 and, if so, is he willing to pay the ultimate price for doing so?
Executive Order 11110 AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289
AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:
Section 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended-
By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j):
(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12,1933, as amended (31 U.S.C.821(b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denomination of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption
and --
By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof.
Sec. 2. The amendments made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made.
John F. Kennedy The White House, June 4, 1963.
Of course, the fact that both JFK and Lincoln met the the same end is a mere coincidence.
Abraham Lincoln's Monetary Policy, 1865 (Page 91 of Senate document 23.)
Money is the creature of law and the creation of the original issue of money should be maintained as the exclusive monopoly of national Government.
Money possesses no value to the State other than that given to it by circulation.
Capital has its proper place and is entitled to every protection. The wages of men should be recognised in the structure of and in the social order as more important than the wages of money.
No duty is more imperative for the Government than the duty it owes the People to furnish them with a sound and uniform currency, and of regulating the circulation of the medium of exchange so that labour will be protected from a vicious currency, and commerce will be facilitated by cheap and safe exchanges.
The available supply of Gold and Silver being wholly inadequate to permit the issuance of coins of intrinsic value or paper currency convertible into coin in the volume required to serve the needs of the People, some other basis for the issue of currency must be developed, and some means other than that of convertibility into coin must be developed to prevent undue fluctuation in the value of paper currency or any other substitute for money of intrinsic value that may come into use.
The monetary needs of increasing numbers of People advancing towards higher standards of living can and should be met by the Government. Such needs can be served by the issue of National Currency and Credit through the operation of a National Banking system .The circulation of a medium of exchange issued and backed by the Government can be properly regulated and redundancy of issue avoided by withdrawing from circulation such amounts as may be necessary by Taxation, Redeposit, and otherwise. Government has the power to regulate the currency and creditof the Nation.
Government should stand behind its currency and credit and the Bank deposits of the Nation. No individual should suffer a loss of money through depreciation or inflated currency or Bank bankruptcy.
Government possessing the power to create and issue currency and credits money and enjoying the right to withdraw both currency and credit from circulation by Taxation and otherwise need not and should not borrow capital at interest as a means of financing Governmental work and public enterprise. The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of the consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Governments greatest creative opportunity.
By the adoption of these principles the long felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts, and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprise, the maintenance of stable Government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own Government. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power.
Some information on the Federal Reserve The Federal Reserve, a Private Corporation One of the most common concerns among people who engage in any effort to reduce their taxes is, "Will keeping my money hurt the government's ability to pay it's bills?" As explained in the first article in this series, the modern withholding tax does not, and wasn't designed to, pay for government services. What it does do, is pay for the privately-owned Federal Reserve System.
Black's Law Dictionary defines the "Federal Reserve System" as, "Network of twelve central banks to which most national banks belong and to which state chartered banks may belong. Membership rules require investment of stock and minimum reserves."
Privately-owned banks own the stock of the Fed. This was explained in more detail in the case of Lewis v. United States, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 680, Pages 1239, 1241 (1982), where the court said:
Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stock-holding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors.
Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Taking another look at Black's Law Dictionary, we find that these privately owned banks actually issue money:
Federal Reserve Act. Law which created Federal Reserve banks which act as agents in maintaining money reserves, issuing money in the form of bank notes, lending money to banks, and supervising banks. Administered by Federal Reserve Board (q.v.).
The FED banks, which are privately owned, actually issue, that is, create, the money we use. In 1964 the House Committee on Banking and Currency, Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, at the second session of the 88th Congress, put out a study entitled Money Facts which contains a good description of what the FED is:
The Federal Reserve is a total money-making machine. It can issue money or checks. And it never has a problem of making its checks good because it can obtain the $5 and $10 bills necessary to cover its check simply by asking the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving to print them.
As we all know, anyone who has a lot of money has a lot of power. Now imagine a group of people who have the power to create money. Imagine the power these people would have. This is what the Fed is.
No man did more to expose the power of the Fed than Louis T. McFadden, who was the Chairman of the House Banking Committee back in the 1930s. Constantly pointing out that monetary issues shouldn't be partisan, he criticized both the Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt administrations. In describing the Fed, he remarked in the Congressional Record, House pages 1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932, that:
Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has cheated the Government of the United States and he people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the maladministration of that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.
Some people think the Federal reserve banks are United States Government institutions. They are not Government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into States to buy votes to control our legislation; and there are those who maintain an international propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us and of wheedling us into the granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime. Those 12 private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this country by bankers who came here from Europe and who repaid us for our hospitality by undermining our American institutions.
The Fed basically works like this: The government granted its power to create money to the Fed banks. They create money, then loan it back to the government charging interest. The government levies income taxes to pay the interest on the debt. On this point, it's interesting to note that the Federal Reserve act and the sixteenth amendment, which gave congress the power to collect income taxes, were both passed in 1913. The incredible power of the Fed over the economy is universally admitted. Some people, especially in the banking and academic communities, even support it. On the other hand, there are those, both in the past and in the present, that speak out against it. One of these men was President John F. Kennedy. His efforts were detailed in Jim Marrs' 1990 book, Crossfire:
Another overlooked aspect of Kennedy's attempt to reform American society involves money. Kennedy apparently reasoned that by returning to the constitution, which states that only Congress shall coin and regulate money, the soaring national debt could be reduced by not paying interest to the bankers of the Federal Reserve System, who print paper money then loan it to the government at interest. He moved in this area on June 4, 1963, by signing Executive Order 11,110 which called for the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in United States Notes through the U.S. Treasury rather than the traditional Federal Reserve System. That same day, Kennedy signed a bill changing the backing of one and two dollar bills from silver to gold, adding strength to the weakened U.S. currency.
Kennedy's comptroller of the currency, James J. Saxon, had been at odds with the powerful Federal Reserve Board for some time, encouraging broader investment and lending powers for banks that were not part of the Federal Reserve system. Saxon also had decided that non-Reserve banks could underwrite state and local general obligation bonds, again weakening the dominant Federal Reserve banks.
A number of "Kennedy bills" were indeed issued - the author has a five dollar bill in his possession with the heading "United States Note" - but were quickly withdrawn after Kennedy's death. According to information from the Library of the Comptroller of the Currency, Executive Order 11,110 remains in effect today, although successive administrations beginning with that of President Lyndon Johnson apparently have simply ignored it and instead returned to the practice of paying interest on Federal Reserve notes. Today we continue to use Federal Reserve Notes, and the deficit is at an all-time high.
The point being made is that the IRS taxes you pay aren't used for government services. It won't hurt you, or the nation, to legally reduce or eliminate your tax liability.
www.whatreallyhappened.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abolish the Federal Reserve (by Congressman Ron Paul)
The Rockefeller Fortunes
The Creature from Jekyll Island
U.S. is in Deep Doodoo!
__________ NOD32 2683 (20071124) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Dear Big Al,
Ever heard the saying, "The Truth is simple"?
All these lawyers and would-be lawyers are on some ego-trip, trying to impress others with their contortions and nonsensical hypotheses.
When you go into Court and there is no Jury, and you want a Jury, you Challenge the Jurisdiction of the Court and have a Jury decide if there will be Trial by Jury.
All this cockamania about "contract with the Judge, etc."??? Anyone who gets sucked in by that is to be pitied - because they have lost sight of reality.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
PS: How about that "CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE"?????....Doesn't that say it all?
"CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE - This e-mail communication is intended for the
sole use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of
this information is strictly prohibited, unless otherwise authorized
herein. Access to this e-mail by any other person/entity is unauthorized."
Dear Wolter,
These and a load of other issues must be brought to the ultimate authority to make and impose laws, ie: to a JURY.
The criminals and traitors are presently denying us our Right to Trial by Jury...which is why we must (all of us) Challenge the Jurisdiction of the Courts.
This is "CHECKMATE" in our favour......and the criminals and traitors resort of physical assault to gag and imprison us.
That is what is happening in OUR COURTS TO US.
We have the RULE OF LAW on our side..........the criminals and traitors only have the MINDLESS BRUTE FORCE of the Sheriffs.
Our fight is for JUSTICE.
Who will triumph?
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: joosse
To: Maurice Kellett ; Michael Kearns ; Maxwell
Cc: Jack Harper ; jhwilson@acay.com.au ; Sue Maynes ; s.leis@sasktel.net ; skylax@comcast.net ; illusions_@telus.net ; inspectionservice@yahoo.com ; info@pacinlaw.org ; richard@netlaw.co.nz ; Sahaj Mail ; bmcdoug@gmail.com ; dai.buckley@gmail.com ; Dennis
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: Were still waiting.Re: Forget about chasing the Queen, politicians, judges etc.
With respect Maurice, what you assume is utterly incorrect. We fully understand what world we live in today. However, we were expressing views on what de jure procedure of governing in God's name means, and what makes for de jure authority. Nothing more, nothing less. Believe me when I say that I have far greater understanding of what is happening to us all than the temporal issues that you refer to below.
It was very refreshing, to me at least, to see one post a candid and correct interpretation of what the Crown represents, and the obligations that go with those who represent same. Very few people really understand the natural law. To discover where it is de facto is a relatively easy exercise. However, if you understood the subject as well as you might, then you would realize that those incidents you speak of below are only the result of people who purport to act in the name of the Crown.
Acting on behalf of Elizabeth II can hardly be justified to act in the name of God [the Crown]. Mrs Elizabeth Guelph abdicated together with her purported government the moment that she broke her covenant [coronation oath] with God. You may pick any her of her breaches, and there are plenty to choose from I suggest. Besides she never enjoyed a natural birthright to the Crown and in reality is only an impostor. The rightful King of the UK would be Michael Hastings who resides in Inverell in NSW, Australia. So please do not mix up de facto authority with de jure authority.
And with respect, you only could go on with what the present de facto Regina might represent and others who follow or represent a false crown. But that is another debate altogether. Anyone who purports to be an officer of the Crown has a duty of care to uphold the temporal Sovereign's covenant with God and His Laws. Failing to do so is an act of treason, since it means the demise of the temporal Sovereign as she abdicates in law.
kind regards
Wolter
----- Original Message -----
From: Maurice Kellett
To: Michael Kearns ; Maxwell
Cc: Jack Harper ; jhwilson@acay.com.au ; joosse@internode.on.net ; Sue Maynes ; s.leis@sasktel.net ; skylax@comcast.net ; illusions_@telus.net ; inspectionservice@yahoo.com ; info@pacinlaw.org ; richard@netlaw.co.nz ; Sahaj Mail ; bmcdoug@gmail.com ; dai.buckley@gmail.com ; Dennis
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: Were still waiting.Re: Forget about chasing the Queen, politicians, judges etc.
My reply to this posting is likely to be long so I will make it as short as possible.
It does appear that you are living in an unreal world with delusions about what the UK Monarchy is and is not.The Judicial Oath of fairness sworn by all UK judges and magistrates is a massive fraud and the Crown is an integral part of this fraud. Fairness under the Judicial Oath is not a common feature of the UK justice system. Corrupt judges etc, such as former recorder John Hugh Fryer-Spedding, reputed to be a friend of Queen Elizabeth II, shelter from their crimes under the Crown. Queen Elizabeth II is nothing to do with God insofar as she is being protected by the Royal Prerogative not God.
Criminals favoured by the UK Monarch are being given Crown immunity from prosecution and this may well also be unlawful and in any event and is certainly more Crown injustice.
It is alleged that the Royal Prerogative has been passed down throughout the ages under Common Law. The UK Crown has its own laws it would seem and has never relied on the Common Law. If the Crown alleges that the Royal Prerogative preventing them from prosecution, which the corrupt UK establishment is doing, then the Magna Carta and the right to trial by jury has also been passed down throughout the ages since long before the Royal Progative was allegedly handed down. The principles of law under the Magna Carta have been eroded by the many corrupt judges now in seats of power in the UK. Their inherent corruption is being protected by the Crown. I have first hand knowledge of this fact so I do speak from experience. Even a summary examination will show that a Monarchy has very often had nothing to do with justice for the people. A Monarchy makes its own laws and rules according to what suits them at the time. We have seen this situation quite recently in the matter of Charles and Camilla. Up until quite recent times, a divorcee was not allowed to marry into the Royal Family. For Charlie boy this has all changed.
Several years ago I wrote to Queen Elizabeth II on the matter of the theft of my home, land, and most of my personal possessions resulting from crime carried out against me by recorder John Hugh Fryer-Spedding of Bassentwaite, Kewick, Cumbria I have made two demands to the Chief Constable of Cumbria, for the arrest of Spedding. These demands continue to be ignored.
I also included the fact in my letter to the UK Crown that Northumbria Police Special Squad officers had taken part in the theft of my home and had also made two attempts on my life first by shooting me and by trying to push a sword into my chest in February 2003 at Hetton-le-Hole, Tyne and Wear. I am now quite sure why police had attempted to murder me. Yes I do believe that there is a God but I don't think that the UK Crown has that belief. Of course I did not receive an acknowledgement from those at Buckingham Palace to my letter. For them to have done that would have also meant acknowledgement that Crown officers, i.e. the police do carry out murder in the name of the Crown. We have seen a similar situation recently with the police murder of Charles de Menzies. There are in fact more such murders.
I could go on with the argument against what the Crown is not, but doing that with someone who thinks that the Crown can do no wrong and that the sun shines out of her rear is clearly living on another world where fairies live. I worked very hard for what was stolen from me. That followed my having contributed to the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee Inquiry into Freemasonry within the UK police and judiciary in 1996. That alleged Inquiry was carried out with Crown permission. The UK Crown is the Patron of the Secret Society of Freemasonry so it was not and could never have been an independent or impartial Inquiry. Lord Nolan who chaired that alleged Inquiry died on 22nd February this year. He was surely well aware of these facts the same as myself. I kept in personal contact with Lord Nolan for several years after the alleged Inquiry into Freemasonry within the police and judiciary. These people operate under the Crown authority and any adverse outcome of such Inquiry would only have reflected back to the Crown. History proves this would never be allowed by the Crown.
Maurice Kellett.
----- Original Message -----
From: Maxwell
To: Maurice Kellett ; Michael Kearns
Cc: Jack Harper ; jhwilson@acay.com.au ; joosse@internode.on.net ; Sue Maynes ; s.leis@sasktel.net ; skylax@comcast.net ; illusions_@telus.net ; inspectionservice@yahoo.com ; info@pacinlaw.org ; richard@netlaw.co.nz ; Sahaj Mail ; bmcdoug@gmail.com ; dai.buckley@gmail.com ; Dennis
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:10 PM
Subject: Were still waiting.Re: Forget about chasing the Queen, politicians, judges etc.
All Christian's have "real" Royal Prerogative exemption in all matters and choose the Royal Law over the Laws of men.
People forget what's really hidden behind the CROWN.
1. The Queen is a "Regina" not a Queen she is "R" a female Regent. BIG DIFFERENCE.
THIS IS WHY "CROWN" CASES ARE NOTED ----- "R" v Smith. (Regina v Smith)
2. The King took none to Court and defended those being punished. He pre-released all those with faith and works from all sin.
Sin no more. A Court is a Christian Royal house, A tribunal is a Roman Pagan Temple.
3. A Regent only rules in the "absence" of the King.
4. The "Supreme" Head of the Church of England is not the Queen.
5. The "Supreme" Head of the Church of England is Jesus Christ as "Publicly" acknowledged by the Church. Christ means King.
6. The Royal King of Kings can never be replaced nor die as he was raised from his death (he died "King of the Jews") and was given "all" Authority in Heaven and on Earth as King of Kings Lord of Lords, he lives forever therefore any "other" future King or Queen etc will be imposter.
Thy (your) Kingdom come "on Earth" as it is in Heaven (already)
7. All Christian's have Royal Prerogative exemption in all matters and choose the Royal Law over the Laws of men.
As all Christians are the "adopted" ( legal children ) of the King as per the Royal Law, Last Testament and Will.
If the King predated their forgiveness of ALL sin what man or woman would dare charge them.
What common servant would dare charge a Kings child let alone the very King of Kings children.
Forgive us our debts (sins errors debts) as we forgive our Debtors.
8. The Crown and ALL authority belongs to the King, he has an Estate that is administered by common Servants our his Servants.
9. The Crown, the Titles, the Treasury the Estate has been abused stolen and hidden from his adopted children.
10 A will and testament has existed for hundreds of years in the common language of his children, it describes his estate, his Kingdom, the inheritance, heirs and inheritors, the wicked servants, the wicked Judges, (Judge Not lest you be Judged), Woes of Bloodguilt weigh on the Lawyers & Religious Heads (Scribes and Pharisees).
If probated, the very will of the King would share the Crown Estate equally among the Kings children. This is why it the WILL is hidden concealed abused for they have stolen the LOT.
11. The Church of England is untaxed and owns each title of Land in the "Commonwealth" is in her Religious Subdivision as a Registered "Parish"
12. The Landowners have NO real estate ownership they are registered TENANT's, either as Tenants in Common or Joint Tenants.
13. The creation of non existent Corpses that are fictional dead persons invented as dead Corp orations masks the hidden owners of everything real and shield them "the servants" from prosecution & examination. This corruption has resulted in everything including Churches Political Parties Nations Governments Public Utilities Banks Credits Debts Assets even our Water of all life of the people being wholesaled and stolen without examination charge or mass complaint.
14. If any Regent were King or Regina were Queen the Jubilee itself released all from slavery debts every 7 years and every 50th year was a Grand Jubilee 7 x 7 + 1 = 50.
He was annointed by his Father at his Baptism in year 30 ..... He died in 33 ..........1974 years later .....39.5 Royal Jubilees later......Were still waiting for the Jubilee.
Thanks
Mike Maxwell
Without Prejudice
All Rights Rites Writes and Riots Reserved
Without Recourse
Version dated 22nd November 2007
=================================================================================================
At 12:30 AM 20/11/2007 -0800, Maurice Kellett wrote:
Dear Michael,
I will reply to your e-mail hopefully more fully sometime latere today. I have urgent work that needs attention today. you have written:
"Fairness is one of the cornerstones of any justice system. THAT IS CORRECT, BUT YOU ARE NOT IN A JUSTIC SYSTEM, NO MATTER WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SAYS, YOU ARE IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM. THE ONLY QUESTION IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE COURT IS, THE ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY CORRECT AND REASONABLE?" AND THE PRESUMPTION IS, YES IT IS"
One question which comes to my mind is who says that such a PRESUMPTION is reasonable and what are their qualifications for giving this opinion. The fact that the Judicial Oath (of Fairness) sworn by judges and magistrates to the Crown has no meaning except probably as a means to deceive the public and is therefore deception of a criminal nature. This fact dictates that the UK Crown is a criminal regardless of whether she is being protected by alleged Crown Immunity from prosecution. A criminal is a criminal whether that crime is protected or not. Cases where Crown Immunity is relied on as a defence should also be brought to trial to allow the pubic to see for themselves just how the alleged justice system works and protects crime carried out by those favoured by the Crown.
It is alleged that the Royal Prerogative has it is claimed has been passed down through the ages which is protecting the UK Crown from prosecution. Similarly Trial by Jury has also been passed down through the ages but is being eroded by what is generally a corrupt judiciary.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Kearns
To: Maurice Kellett
Cc: Jack Harper ; jhwilson@acay.com.au ; Maxwell ; joosse@internode.on.net ; Sue Maynes ; s.leis@sasktel.net ; skylax@comcast.net ; illusions_@telus.net ; inspectionservice@yahoo.com ; info@pacinlaw.org ; richard@netlaw.co.nz ; Sahaj Mail ; bmcdoug@gmail.com ; dai.buckley@gmail.com ; Dennis
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: Forget about chasing the Queen, politicians, judges etc.
Maurice: My comments are in BOLD CAPS.
On Nov 19, 2007 6:00 PM, Maurice Kellett wrote:
The other title for lawyers is Officers of the Courts. They are therefore a part of them, corruption and all. All UK courts operate under the authority of the UK Crown the same woman who is an integral part in the massive Judicial Oath fraud. UK Members of Parliament are required to swear an Oath of Allegiance only to the UK Crown but not to the people who have voted them into office and are then required to page their wages. I am satisfied after have spent considerable time communicating to UK Members of Parliament, that only the UK Crown has such Members of Parliament. The UK public it would seem are being deceived that they have such Members of Parliament. No, I think that we must expose the UK Crown for the wrongs that it is causing to the UK public and it would also seem in other countries before public opinion will help bring about an end to judicial crime. The Judicial Oath sworn by all UK judges and magistrates only to the UK Crown is a fraud and therefore a crime. Should we really accept a criminal as our Head of State and the Head of State in Commonwealth countries?
Fairness is one of the cornerstones of any justice system. THAT IS CORRECT, BUT YOU ARE NOT IN A JUSTIC SYSTEM, NO MATTER WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SAYS, YOU ARE IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM. THE ONLY QUESTION IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE COURT IS, "IS THE ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY CORRECT AND REASONABLE?" AND THE PRESUMPTION IS, YES IT IS. The UK Judicial Oath of Fairness sworn only to the Queen most certainly does not have the meaning that its supposed to have. This amounts to a criminal deception. I have suffered a Hell caused by very considerable judicial crime. Then find that the judicial mob are being given Crown Immunity to protect them from their crimes. No, the UK Crown has a lot to answer for. Monarchy's have generally been involved in crimes against the people for centuries. Nothing has changed in this respect. REMEMBER NOW, DON'T BE TOO TOUGH ON THE OLD QUEEN, BECAUSE SHE OPERATES UNDER THE PRESUMPTION, YOU VOLUNTEERED. HOW DOES SHE DO THAT, BECAUSE YOU NEVER TOLD HER DIFFERENT IN THE CORRECT MANNER.
Judges must be made accountable for their crimes or there is no justice. Obtaining justice is one of the most expensive items a person might have to resort to in their lifetime. Justice is surely a basic right of all mankind but with criminals in the driving seat, what else should we expect? The English Civil wars came about because of much the same situation that has come about again. The world does indeed have terrorists and they are often home grown as well. There should be a notice placed above the doors of all UK courtrooms, "Abandon Hope All Who Enter Here". NO, THE SIGN SHOULD READ, "ADMINISTRATIVE COURT, ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK." Truth must prevail from entering and leaving any courtroom. COME ON GUYS, TRUTH IS NOT EVEN A CONSIDERATION IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE COURT ROOM, GIVE ME A BREAK.
Maurice Kellett
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Harper
To: jhwilson@acay.com.au
Cc: 'Michael Kearns' ; 'Maxwell' ; joosse@internode.on.net ; 'Sue Maynes' ; s.leis@sasktel.net ; skylax@comcast.net ; illusions_@telus.net ; inspectionservice@yahoo.com ; info@pacinlaw.org ; richard@netlaw.co.nz ; 'Sahaj Mail' ; bmcdoug@gmail.com ; dai.buckley@gmail.com ; m.kellett@tiscali.co.uk ; 'Dennis'
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 2:44 PM
Subject: Forget about chasing the Queen, politicians, judges etc.
Forget about chasing the Queen, politicians, judges etc.
Go for the throat of the instigators of the whole screwed up system.
Go for the LAWYER'S and their "word law."
Excerpt from;
WOE UNTO YOU, LAWYERS!
by Fred Rodell 1939
Professor of Law, Yale University
"The Law is the killy-loo bird of the sciences. The killy-loo, of course, was the bird that insisted on flying backward because it didn't care where it was going but was mightily interested in where it had been. And certainly The Law, when it moves at all, does so by flapping clumsily and uncertainly along, with its eye unswervingly glued on what lies behind. In medicine, in mathematics, in sociology, in psychology – in every other one of the physical and social sciences – the accepted aim is to look ahead and then move ahead to new truths, new techniques, new usefulness. Only The Law, inexorably devoted to all its most ancient principles and precedents, makes a vice of innovation and a virtue of hoariness. Only The Law resists and resents the notion that it should ever change its antiquated ways to meet the challenge of a changing world.
It is well-nigh impossible to understand how The Law works without fully appreciating the truth of this fact: — The Law never admits to itself that there can be anything actually new under the sun. Minor variations of old facts, old machines, old relationships, yes; but never anything different enough to bother The Law into treating it otherwise than as an old friend in a new suit of clothes. When corporations first came on the legal scene, The Law regarded them as individual persons, in disguise, and so, for most legal purposes, a corporation is still considered, and even talked about, as a "person." A transport airplane, so far as The Law is concerned, is nothing but a newfangled variety of stagecoach. Such things as sit-down strikes, holding companies, Paris divorces, were treated with almost contemptuous familiarity by The Law when they first appeared, and the same fate undoubtedly awaits television when it grows up and begins to tangle with The Law. For all this is part of a carefully nurtured legend to the effect that The Law is so omniscient that nothing men may do can ever take it unawares, and so all-embracing that the principles which will apply to men's actions 500 years from now are merely waiting to be applied to whatever men happen to be doing in 2439 A.D."
Offered for your consideration,
Jack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1139 - Release Date: 19/11/2007 12:35
--
Have a great day.
Michael Joseph Kearns
michael.joseph.kearns (at) gmail.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1139 - Release Date: 19/11/2007 12:35
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.1/1140 - Release Date: 19/11/2007 7:05 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.2/1143 - Release Date: 21/11/2007 10:01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.2/1143 - Release Date: 21/11/2007 10:01 AM
__________ NOD32 2679 (20071122) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
Ever heard the saying, "The Truth is simple"?
All these lawyers and would-be lawyers are on some ego-trip, trying to impress others with their contortions and nonsensical hypotheses.
When you go into Court and there is no Jury, and you want a Jury, you Challenge the Jurisdiction of the Court and have a Jury decide if there will be Trial by Jury.
All this cockamania about "contract with the Judge, etc."??? Anyone who gets sucked in by that is to be pitied - because they have lost sight of reality.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
PS: How about that "CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE"?????....Doesn't that say it all?
"CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE - This e-mail communication is intended for the
sole use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of
this information is strictly prohibited, unless otherwise authorized
herein. Access to this e-mail by any other person/entity is unauthorized."
Dear Wolter,
These and a load of other issues must be brought to the ultimate authority to make and impose laws, ie: to a JURY.
The criminals and traitors are presently denying us our Right to Trial by Jury...which is why we must (all of us) Challenge the Jurisdiction of the Courts.
This is "CHECKMATE" in our favour......and the criminals and traitors resort of physical assault to gag and imprison us.
That is what is happening in OUR COURTS TO US.
We have the RULE OF LAW on our side..........the criminals and traitors only have the MINDLESS BRUTE FORCE of the Sheriffs.
Our fight is for JUSTICE.
Who will triumph?
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: joosse
To: Maurice Kellett ; Michael Kearns ; Maxwell
Cc: Jack Harper ; jhwilson@acay.com.au ; Sue Maynes ; s.leis@sasktel.net ; skylax@comcast.net ; illusions_@telus.net ; inspectionservice@yahoo.com ; info@pacinlaw.org ; richard@netlaw.co.nz ; Sahaj Mail ; bmcdoug@gmail.com ; dai.buckley@gmail.com ; Dennis
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: Were still waiting.Re: Forget about chasing the Queen, politicians, judges etc.
With respect Maurice, what you assume is utterly incorrect. We fully understand what world we live in today. However, we were expressing views on what de jure procedure of governing in God's name means, and what makes for de jure authority. Nothing more, nothing less. Believe me when I say that I have far greater understanding of what is happening to us all than the temporal issues that you refer to below.
It was very refreshing, to me at least, to see one post a candid and correct interpretation of what the Crown represents, and the obligations that go with those who represent same. Very few people really understand the natural law. To discover where it is de facto is a relatively easy exercise. However, if you understood the subject as well as you might, then you would realize that those incidents you speak of below are only the result of people who purport to act in the name of the Crown.
Acting on behalf of Elizabeth II can hardly be justified to act in the name of God [the Crown]. Mrs Elizabeth Guelph abdicated together with her purported government the moment that she broke her covenant [coronation oath] with God. You may pick any her of her breaches, and there are plenty to choose from I suggest. Besides she never enjoyed a natural birthright to the Crown and in reality is only an impostor. The rightful King of the UK would be Michael Hastings who resides in Inverell in NSW, Australia. So please do not mix up de facto authority with de jure authority.
And with respect, you only could go on with what the present de facto Regina might represent and others who follow or represent a false crown. But that is another debate altogether. Anyone who purports to be an officer of the Crown has a duty of care to uphold the temporal Sovereign's covenant with God and His Laws. Failing to do so is an act of treason, since it means the demise of the temporal Sovereign as she abdicates in law.
kind regards
Wolter
----- Original Message -----
From: Maurice Kellett
To: Michael Kearns ; Maxwell
Cc: Jack Harper ; jhwilson@acay.com.au ; joosse@internode.on.net ; Sue Maynes ; s.leis@sasktel.net ; skylax@comcast.net ; illusions_@telus.net ; inspectionservice@yahoo.com ; info@pacinlaw.org ; richard@netlaw.co.nz ; Sahaj Mail ; bmcdoug@gmail.com ; dai.buckley@gmail.com ; Dennis
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: Were still waiting.Re: Forget about chasing the Queen, politicians, judges etc.
My reply to this posting is likely to be long so I will make it as short as possible.
It does appear that you are living in an unreal world with delusions about what the UK Monarchy is and is not.The Judicial Oath of fairness sworn by all UK judges and magistrates is a massive fraud and the Crown is an integral part of this fraud. Fairness under the Judicial Oath is not a common feature of the UK justice system. Corrupt judges etc, such as former recorder John Hugh Fryer-Spedding, reputed to be a friend of Queen Elizabeth II, shelter from their crimes under the Crown. Queen Elizabeth II is nothing to do with God insofar as she is being protected by the Royal Prerogative not God.
Criminals favoured by the UK Monarch are being given Crown immunity from prosecution and this may well also be unlawful and in any event and is certainly more Crown injustice.
It is alleged that the Royal Prerogative has been passed down throughout the ages under Common Law. The UK Crown has its own laws it would seem and has never relied on the Common Law. If the Crown alleges that the Royal Prerogative preventing them from prosecution, which the corrupt UK establishment is doing, then the Magna Carta and the right to trial by jury has also been passed down throughout the ages since long before the Royal Progative was allegedly handed down. The principles of law under the Magna Carta have been eroded by the many corrupt judges now in seats of power in the UK. Their inherent corruption is being protected by the Crown. I have first hand knowledge of this fact so I do speak from experience. Even a summary examination will show that a Monarchy has very often had nothing to do with justice for the people. A Monarchy makes its own laws and rules according to what suits them at the time. We have seen this situation quite recently in the matter of Charles and Camilla. Up until quite recent times, a divorcee was not allowed to marry into the Royal Family. For Charlie boy this has all changed.
Several years ago I wrote to Queen Elizabeth II on the matter of the theft of my home, land, and most of my personal possessions resulting from crime carried out against me by recorder John Hugh Fryer-Spedding of Bassentwaite, Kewick, Cumbria I have made two demands to the Chief Constable of Cumbria, for the arrest of Spedding. These demands continue to be ignored.
I also included the fact in my letter to the UK Crown that Northumbria Police Special Squad officers had taken part in the theft of my home and had also made two attempts on my life first by shooting me and by trying to push a sword into my chest in February 2003 at Hetton-le-Hole, Tyne and Wear. I am now quite sure why police had attempted to murder me. Yes I do believe that there is a God but I don't think that the UK Crown has that belief. Of course I did not receive an acknowledgement from those at Buckingham Palace to my letter. For them to have done that would have also meant acknowledgement that Crown officers, i.e. the police do carry out murder in the name of the Crown. We have seen a similar situation recently with the police murder of Charles de Menzies. There are in fact more such murders.
I could go on with the argument against what the Crown is not, but doing that with someone who thinks that the Crown can do no wrong and that the sun shines out of her rear is clearly living on another world where fairies live. I worked very hard for what was stolen from me. That followed my having contributed to the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee Inquiry into Freemasonry within the UK police and judiciary in 1996. That alleged Inquiry was carried out with Crown permission. The UK Crown is the Patron of the Secret Society of Freemasonry so it was not and could never have been an independent or impartial Inquiry. Lord Nolan who chaired that alleged Inquiry died on 22nd February this year. He was surely well aware of these facts the same as myself. I kept in personal contact with Lord Nolan for several years after the alleged Inquiry into Freemasonry within the police and judiciary. These people operate under the Crown authority and any adverse outcome of such Inquiry would only have reflected back to the Crown. History proves this would never be allowed by the Crown.
Maurice Kellett.
----- Original Message -----
From: Maxwell
To: Maurice Kellett ; Michael Kearns
Cc: Jack Harper ; jhwilson@acay.com.au ; joosse@internode.on.net ; Sue Maynes ; s.leis@sasktel.net ; skylax@comcast.net ; illusions_@telus.net ; inspectionservice@yahoo.com ; info@pacinlaw.org ; richard@netlaw.co.nz ; Sahaj Mail ; bmcdoug@gmail.com ; dai.buckley@gmail.com ; Dennis
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:10 PM
Subject: Were still waiting.Re: Forget about chasing the Queen, politicians, judges etc.
All Christian's have "real" Royal Prerogative exemption in all matters and choose the Royal Law over the Laws of men.
People forget what's really hidden behind the CROWN.
1. The Queen is a "Regina" not a Queen she is "R" a female Regent. BIG DIFFERENCE.
THIS IS WHY "CROWN" CASES ARE NOTED ----- "R" v Smith. (Regina v Smith)
2. The King took none to Court and defended those being punished. He pre-released all those with faith and works from all sin.
Sin no more. A Court is a Christian Royal house, A tribunal is a Roman Pagan Temple.
3. A Regent only rules in the "absence" of the King.
4. The "Supreme" Head of the Church of England is not the Queen.
5. The "Supreme" Head of the Church of England is Jesus Christ as "Publicly" acknowledged by the Church. Christ means King.
6. The Royal King of Kings can never be replaced nor die as he was raised from his death (he died "King of the Jews") and was given "all" Authority in Heaven and on Earth as King of Kings Lord of Lords, he lives forever therefore any "other" future King or Queen etc will be imposter.
Thy (your) Kingdom come "on Earth" as it is in Heaven (already)
7. All Christian's have Royal Prerogative exemption in all matters and choose the Royal Law over the Laws of men.
As all Christians are the "adopted" ( legal children ) of the King as per the Royal Law, Last Testament and Will.
If the King predated their forgiveness of ALL sin what man or woman would dare charge them.
What common servant would dare charge a Kings child let alone the very King of Kings children.
Forgive us our debts (sins errors debts) as we forgive our Debtors.
8. The Crown and ALL authority belongs to the King, he has an Estate that is administered by common Servants our his Servants.
9. The Crown, the Titles, the Treasury the Estate has been abused stolen and hidden from his adopted children.
10 A will and testament has existed for hundreds of years in the common language of his children, it describes his estate, his Kingdom, the inheritance, heirs and inheritors, the wicked servants, the wicked Judges, (Judge Not lest you be Judged), Woes of Bloodguilt weigh on the Lawyers & Religious Heads (Scribes and Pharisees).
If probated, the very will of the King would share the Crown Estate equally among the Kings children. This is why it the WILL is hidden concealed abused for they have stolen the LOT.
11. The Church of England is untaxed and owns each title of Land in the "Commonwealth" is in her Religious Subdivision as a Registered "Parish"
12. The Landowners have NO real estate ownership they are registered TENANT's, either as Tenants in Common or Joint Tenants.
13. The creation of non existent Corpses that are fictional dead persons invented as dead Corp orations masks the hidden owners of everything real and shield them "the servants" from prosecution & examination. This corruption has resulted in everything including Churches Political Parties Nations Governments Public Utilities Banks Credits Debts Assets even our Water of all life of the people being wholesaled and stolen without examination charge or mass complaint.
14. If any Regent were King or Regina were Queen the Jubilee itself released all from slavery debts every 7 years and every 50th year was a Grand Jubilee 7 x 7 + 1 = 50.
He was annointed by his Father at his Baptism in year 30 ..... He died in 33 ..........1974 years later .....39.5 Royal Jubilees later......Were still waiting for the Jubilee.
Thanks
Mike Maxwell
Without Prejudice
All Rights Rites Writes and Riots Reserved
Without Recourse
Version dated 22nd November 2007
=================================================================================================
At 12:30 AM 20/11/2007 -0800, Maurice Kellett wrote:
Dear Michael,
I will reply to your e-mail hopefully more fully sometime latere today. I have urgent work that needs attention today. you have written:
"Fairness is one of the cornerstones of any justice system. THAT IS CORRECT, BUT YOU ARE NOT IN A JUSTIC SYSTEM, NO MATTER WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SAYS, YOU ARE IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM. THE ONLY QUESTION IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE COURT IS, THE ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY CORRECT AND REASONABLE?" AND THE PRESUMPTION IS, YES IT IS"
One question which comes to my mind is who says that such a PRESUMPTION is reasonable and what are their qualifications for giving this opinion. The fact that the Judicial Oath (of Fairness) sworn by judges and magistrates to the Crown has no meaning except probably as a means to deceive the public and is therefore deception of a criminal nature. This fact dictates that the UK Crown is a criminal regardless of whether she is being protected by alleged Crown Immunity from prosecution. A criminal is a criminal whether that crime is protected or not. Cases where Crown Immunity is relied on as a defence should also be brought to trial to allow the pubic to see for themselves just how the alleged justice system works and protects crime carried out by those favoured by the Crown.
It is alleged that the Royal Prerogative has it is claimed has been passed down through the ages which is protecting the UK Crown from prosecution. Similarly Trial by Jury has also been passed down through the ages but is being eroded by what is generally a corrupt judiciary.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Kearns
To: Maurice Kellett
Cc: Jack Harper ; jhwilson@acay.com.au ; Maxwell ; joosse@internode.on.net ; Sue Maynes ; s.leis@sasktel.net ; skylax@comcast.net ; illusions_@telus.net ; inspectionservice@yahoo.com ; info@pacinlaw.org ; richard@netlaw.co.nz ; Sahaj Mail ; bmcdoug@gmail.com ; dai.buckley@gmail.com ; Dennis
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: Forget about chasing the Queen, politicians, judges etc.
Maurice: My comments are in BOLD CAPS.
On Nov 19, 2007 6:00 PM, Maurice Kellett
The other title for lawyers is Officers of the Courts. They are therefore a part of them, corruption and all. All UK courts operate under the authority of the UK Crown the same woman who is an integral part in the massive Judicial Oath fraud. UK Members of Parliament are required to swear an Oath of Allegiance only to the UK Crown but not to the people who have voted them into office and are then required to page their wages. I am satisfied after have spent considerable time communicating to UK Members of Parliament, that only the UK Crown has such Members of Parliament. The UK public it would seem are being deceived that they have such Members of Parliament. No, I think that we must expose the UK Crown for the wrongs that it is causing to the UK public and it would also seem in other countries before public opinion will help bring about an end to judicial crime. The Judicial Oath sworn by all UK judges and magistrates only to the UK Crown is a fraud and therefore a crime. Should we really accept a criminal as our Head of State and the Head of State in Commonwealth countries?
Fairness is one of the cornerstones of any justice system. THAT IS CORRECT, BUT YOU ARE NOT IN A JUSTIC SYSTEM, NO MATTER WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SAYS, YOU ARE IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM. THE ONLY QUESTION IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE COURT IS, "IS THE ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY CORRECT AND REASONABLE?" AND THE PRESUMPTION IS, YES IT IS. The UK Judicial Oath of Fairness sworn only to the Queen most certainly does not have the meaning that its supposed to have. This amounts to a criminal deception. I have suffered a Hell caused by very considerable judicial crime. Then find that the judicial mob are being given Crown Immunity to protect them from their crimes. No, the UK Crown has a lot to answer for. Monarchy's have generally been involved in crimes against the people for centuries. Nothing has changed in this respect. REMEMBER NOW, DON'T BE TOO TOUGH ON THE OLD QUEEN, BECAUSE SHE OPERATES UNDER THE PRESUMPTION, YOU VOLUNTEERED. HOW DOES SHE DO THAT, BECAUSE YOU NEVER TOLD HER DIFFERENT IN THE CORRECT MANNER.
Judges must be made accountable for their crimes or there is no justice. Obtaining justice is one of the most expensive items a person might have to resort to in their lifetime. Justice is surely a basic right of all mankind but with criminals in the driving seat, what else should we expect? The English Civil wars came about because of much the same situation that has come about again. The world does indeed have terrorists and they are often home grown as well. There should be a notice placed above the doors of all UK courtrooms, "Abandon Hope All Who Enter Here". NO, THE SIGN SHOULD READ, "ADMINISTRATIVE COURT, ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK." Truth must prevail from entering and leaving any courtroom. COME ON GUYS, TRUTH IS NOT EVEN A CONSIDERATION IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE COURT ROOM, GIVE ME A BREAK.
Maurice Kellett
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Harper
To: jhwilson@acay.com.au
Cc: 'Michael Kearns' ; 'Maxwell' ; joosse@internode.on.net ; 'Sue Maynes' ; s.leis@sasktel.net ; skylax@comcast.net ; illusions_@telus.net ; inspectionservice@yahoo.com ; info@pacinlaw.org ; richard@netlaw.co.nz ; 'Sahaj Mail' ; bmcdoug@gmail.com ; dai.buckley@gmail.com ; m.kellett@tiscali.co.uk ; 'Dennis'
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 2:44 PM
Subject: Forget about chasing the Queen, politicians, judges etc.
Forget about chasing the Queen, politicians, judges etc.
Go for the throat of the instigators of the whole screwed up system.
Go for the LAWYER'S and their "word law."
Excerpt from;
WOE UNTO YOU, LAWYERS!
by Fred Rodell 1939
Professor of Law, Yale University
"The Law is the killy-loo bird of the sciences. The killy-loo, of course, was the bird that insisted on flying backward because it didn't care where it was going but was mightily interested in where it had been. And certainly The Law, when it moves at all, does so by flapping clumsily and uncertainly along, with its eye unswervingly glued on what lies behind. In medicine, in mathematics, in sociology, in psychology – in every other one of the physical and social sciences – the accepted aim is to look ahead and then move ahead to new truths, new techniques, new usefulness. Only The Law, inexorably devoted to all its most ancient principles and precedents, makes a vice of innovation and a virtue of hoariness. Only The Law resists and resents the notion that it should ever change its antiquated ways to meet the challenge of a changing world.
It is well-nigh impossible to understand how The Law works without fully appreciating the truth of this fact: — The Law never admits to itself that there can be anything actually new under the sun. Minor variations of old facts, old machines, old relationships, yes; but never anything different enough to bother The Law into treating it otherwise than as an old friend in a new suit of clothes. When corporations first came on the legal scene, The Law regarded them as individual persons, in disguise, and so, for most legal purposes, a corporation is still considered, and even talked about, as a "person." A transport airplane, so far as The Law is concerned, is nothing but a newfangled variety of stagecoach. Such things as sit-down strikes, holding companies, Paris divorces, were treated with almost contemptuous familiarity by The Law when they first appeared, and the same fate undoubtedly awaits television when it grows up and begins to tangle with The Law. For all this is part of a carefully nurtured legend to the effect that The Law is so omniscient that nothing men may do can ever take it unawares, and so all-embracing that the principles which will apply to men's actions 500 years from now are merely waiting to be applied to whatever men happen to be doing in 2439 A.D."
Offered for your consideration,
Jack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1139 - Release Date: 19/11/2007 12:35
--
Have a great day.
Michael Joseph Kearns
michael.joseph.kearns (at) gmail.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1139 - Release Date: 19/11/2007 12:35
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.1/1140 - Release Date: 19/11/2007 7:05 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.2/1143 - Release Date: 21/11/2007 10:01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.2/1143 - Release Date: 21/11/2007 10:01 AM
__________ NOD32 2679 (20071122) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Dear Fellow Australians,
Attached is the Court Transcript of Tuesday 25 September 2007 - which only just arrived, after a fair bit of chasing. It shows how Australian Judges assume they have absolute power....which reminds me of one of my favourite utterances...."Judges must never be given nor allowed to assume absolute power whereby they can conceal their own incompetence, corruption and treachery.".
This is the case where I have Subpoenaed the NSW Governor to attend on 17th December to answer questions and to produce documents, such as Letters Patent, etc., on or before 30th November 2007. I would be very surprised if she complies....so, I'll have an Arrest Warrant ready for the 17th.
It is the one where the NSW Attorney-General has decided to "intervene" and become a party to proceedings. This is because of a 78B Notice sent out to all the Attorney-Generals, ie: a Notice of a Constitutional Matter.
I, of course, am demanding the Right to Trial by Jury and am Challenging the Jurisdiction of the Court.
The Magistrate on Sept 25 was a fellow called "MAGISTRATE RUSSELL". He said the most outrageous things - which all Australians need to be aware of...because they make it quite clear that they have turned our Courts into Kangaroo Courts, ie: "a court which acts unfairly or dishonestly or disregards legal rights or disregards legal procedures".
He said he was entering a plea of "Not Guilty" for me, "pursuant to section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Act" - which, on checking, is headed up "How evidence is taken" and makes no mention of pleading, proper or improper.
He said, "It's a legal issue, it's a constitutional issue, juries don't decide those Mr Wilson".
Well, who does he think instituted the Constitution, in the first place? The People voted at a Referendum in 1899, by a majority in a majority of States, to allow the Bill for an Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia to go to the UK Parliament....otherwise, it wouldn't have come into existence, at all. AND, who does he think is the ONLY way any part of the Constitution can be altered????....yep, by Referendum, again.
Sir William Blackstone said "...trial by jury; called also the trial per pais, or by the country".
And these buffoons think THEY, servants of our servants, can pock their noses into issues from which they are clearly and unequivocally excluded.
He goes on to say, "...the threshold is how the matter is to proceed, so there's going to be a legal argument. That will be in the absence of a jury, that will be a matter for a judge to decide whether the court has the jurisdiction to deal with the matter". I argued, "A judge can't decide judging his own cause....etc".
No Parliament has the power to take away the Rights of the People.
So, anyone interested in witnessing proceedings at the Parramatta Local Court (cnr George & Marsden Streets, Parramatta) at 9:30 am on Monday 17th December, 2007????? It's bound to be entertaining, at least.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
Attached is the Court Transcript of Tuesday 25 September 2007 - which only just arrived, after a fair bit of chasing. It shows how Australian Judges assume they have absolute power....which reminds me of one of my favourite utterances...."Judges must never be given nor allowed to assume absolute power whereby they can conceal their own incompetence, corruption and treachery.".
This is the case where I have Subpoenaed the NSW Governor to attend on 17th December to answer questions and to produce documents, such as Letters Patent, etc., on or before 30th November 2007. I would be very surprised if she complies....so, I'll have an Arrest Warrant ready for the 17th.
It is the one where the NSW Attorney-General has decided to "intervene" and become a party to proceedings. This is because of a 78B Notice sent out to all the Attorney-Generals, ie: a Notice of a Constitutional Matter.
I, of course, am demanding the Right to Trial by Jury and am Challenging the Jurisdiction of the Court.
The Magistrate on Sept 25 was a fellow called "MAGISTRATE RUSSELL". He said the most outrageous things - which all Australians need to be aware of...because they make it quite clear that they have turned our Courts into Kangaroo Courts, ie: "a court which acts unfairly or dishonestly or disregards legal rights or disregards legal procedures".
He said he was entering a plea of "Not Guilty" for me, "pursuant to section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Act" - which, on checking, is headed up "How evidence is taken" and makes no mention of pleading, proper or improper.
He said, "It's a legal issue, it's a constitutional issue, juries don't decide those Mr Wilson".
Well, who does he think instituted the Constitution, in the first place? The People voted at a Referendum in 1899, by a majority in a majority of States, to allow the Bill for an Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia to go to the UK Parliament....otherwise, it wouldn't have come into existence, at all. AND, who does he think is the ONLY way any part of the Constitution can be altered????....yep, by Referendum, again.
Sir William Blackstone said "...trial by jury; called also the trial per pais, or by the country".
And these buffoons think THEY, servants of our servants, can pock their noses into issues from which they are clearly and unequivocally excluded.
He goes on to say, "...the threshold is how the matter is to proceed, so there's going to be a legal argument. That will be in the absence of a jury, that will be a matter for a judge to decide whether the court has the jurisdiction to deal with the matter". I argued, "A judge can't decide judging his own cause....etc".
No Parliament has the power to take away the Rights of the People.
So, anyone interested in witnessing proceedings at the Parramatta Local Court (cnr George & Marsden Streets, Parramatta) at 9:30 am on Monday 17th December, 2007????? It's bound to be entertaining, at least.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)