Despatches from the battlefront

[Veronica]

It seems that they've twigged the 'Common Law jurisdiction business' (presumably the word has gone out) and … sorry … I can't help laughing my head off … Common Sense is such a wonderful thing ... have decided that it can be ignored, and 'liable person not present fraud' can be used to proceed 'in absentia'.

Why am I laughing my head off? Because … if this is the best they can do … THEY ARE TOTALLY FUCKED!!!

If they proceed 'in absentia' … as if you were not there … then they are admitting this:

1. The Court Policyman is not 'liable'
2. The Court Usher is not 'liable'
3. The Clerk of the Court is not 'liable'
4. The Magistrates are not 'liable'
5. No-one in the Public Gallery is 'liable'
... and so on ... and therefore:
6. YOU, yourself, the Human Being, are not 'liable' (any more than the others are)! BECAUSE YOU ARE PRESENT AND NOT 'IN ABSENTIA'!

Geez! IS THIS THE BEST THEY CAN DO???????

Actually … I think it is. After all, what else can they do … this bends 'the rules' to breaking point?

Responses are: "That being the case - since I am present - you have de facto admitted that I am not liable - and consequently I can hold ALL OF YOU PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE ... if anything untoward should happen to me ... after all I have as much right to protection as do you".

I think this might just cause a few red faces, myself.

If you get any paperwork through ... you can write back saying that you attended the Hearing ... making a Special Appearance to establish jurisdiction ... which was not successfully established ... and saw what was going on ... and saw them proceed as though the 'liable person' was 'in absentia'.

And since you, the Human Being, were not 'in absentia' ... because you saw it happen ... thus they have admitted you are not the 'liable person' ... and so why are they sending paperwork to a Human Being that THEY THEMSELVES ... have de facto admitted 'is not liable'? What right do they have to go against their very own admission/declaration?

[huntingross]

Nice.

[Veronica]

What literally SCREAMS out of reports I've been getting is this:

1. If you don't admit to being a Legal Fiction Person they will either withdraw the case or proceed 'in absentia' ... declaring 'liable person not present'. (That's good ... innit? Before the case even starts the 'person' is already 'liable'. And if you ask them "Is this justice?" ... they will have the bollox & the front to say "Yes". Well retract my batons!)

2. The 'liable person not present' bollox must be the best they can come up with ... otherwise surely they would come up with something better? I mean, they are not going to sod about, are they? Let's face it: The ability of 'Magistrates Courts' to function at all, is at stake here!

3. If we have managed to get this far since February this year ... then the question is this: Will Magistrates Courts actually exist ... come December, 2009?

They can ignore us ... they can treat us like shit ... but the House of Cards is already collapsing around their little ears.

Long Live Lawful Rebellion!

Oh ... sorry ... It means what we've always said: The Magistrates Courts KNOW that they cannot proceed against Human Being. That they DO NOT HAVE Common Law jurisdiction. That is PROVED by every report. The Human 'must' identify him or her self as their Legal Fiction for them to proceed as normal. They will BE FORCED to proceed in absentia if the Human Being sticks to their Common Law guns. This is now proven all over the country ... conclusively ... beyond any possible doubt.

[IamallthatIam]

And this is going to be going right back at 'em RIGHT NOW ......as you know they decided to "proceed in absentia" the other week at a hearing SI went to - after they threatened to arrest him ( what for ?????? You may well ask !!! They couldnt actually say what for because they didnt know !!!!!!) LMAO

Notice on its way as we speak !!!!!!!

We'll bring the bastards down you see if we dont !!!!!!!

[huntingross]

Well slow down V, there is much good work on here in a very short space of time, but lets not disrespect those that have been on the batlefront before then....but point taken, this appears to be very significant, if you want to put down an up-rising....you'd expect the best guns to the front.

If they eject the markj from the court room, establishing i'm not the liable person, then I don't care if the poor sod MARKJ is liable or not...it's about time they threw his sorry ass in the dungeon.

[Veronica]

No disrespect to anyone, Mark, except to the bastards in the Courts. And those Policymen who are just out & out thugs in blue cloth. (And don't try to tell me there are some non-corrupt Judges ... geez! They could not possibly be Judges ... these days ... unless they were totally corrupt)

In my book Page 3 ... is say "You are heroes. You are heroines. And you know who you are". That's respect, Mark.

(There are just far too many to list ... and if I left someone out it would be a crime)

[huntingross]

We're not disagreeing V, there are many champions on this front....those before and those to come.

[MikeThomas]

Well, that opening statement from Veronica is PURE COMMON SENSE GENIUS!!!

The PTB cannot have it both ways! You're either liable or not! This is clear evidence that we have to admit the 'legal person', or they're stuffed!

On another point: How can the PTB proceed 'in absentia' if there is no contract in place. I've returned all my court paperwork to them and not signed anything. No plea, no 'means statement', no possible way to prove I have contracted with them. In fact notices have been sent asking them to 'clarify', which they have choosen not to. So if they ignore my paperwork (and have a right too) surely the same privilage extends to me.

Maybe we should write to the courts and claim some bogus service that we offered them and 'bill' them 'in absentia'. Would that work? Would it hell! They will claim they never contracted for 'bogus services'. So what gives them the right to FORCE us into contract?

[IamallthatIam]

Well, that opening statement from Veronica is PURE COMMON SENSE GENIUS!!!

The PTB cannot have it both ways! You're either liable or not! This is clear evidence that we have to admit the 'legal person', or they're stuffed!

well this is the exact same evidence that has pissed off Llanelli County Court , this is what provoked their response to me this morning viewtopic.php?f=76&t=1765 so we have definitely hit a nerve folks !!

[theshotgunhero]

I know this is an old topic, but 01/02/2010 was my first chance to assert my inalienable rights in a Magistrates Court, and a warrant was issued for the 'person not present'.
Didn't think to say anything at this point because I knew they couldn't arrest me, I was there!
Still didn't stop the policymen from kicking my gate in to get at me. 'We just want to talk...' - not falling for that again!!
The whole experience of being in cells (police and court) for 14 hours made me lose faith in this Freeman thing. Once I was thrown in to the dock I continued to stand my ground knowing that there was still the chance of stopping the trial - a trial that was going ahead whether I was a person of not.
As I was unlawfully arrested and didn't volutarily enter in to any contracts, and the police and courts insist that I'm the legal fiction I've decided to right an Affidavit of Facts by Negative Averment and Denial of Assumptions (they got no evidence of this and that and I deny all of the obvious assumptions they've made, basically).
I'm hoping this is enough, just not convinced it will be.
As much as I appreciated your book VC, I've surpassed it already.
Really don't want to go to trial, too much on my mind (it's not a proper trial anyway). I can save everyone invloved a lot of bother if I can stop it going ahead. I fear that the trial will continue in my absense though. What's the point in an unrebutted Affidavit if they charge 'me'?!