UK Notary Refuses to Deal With Notice of Understanding!!!!

Re: UK Notary Refuses to Deal With Notice of Understanding!!!!

Postby Arten » Sat Jan 02, 2010 10:01 pm

find three good people who can witness your declaration/document.

Three? I thought it was two or more and the Holy Spirit would bear Witness before God. That would be good enough for me.
Arten
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:19 pm

Re: UK Notary Refuses to Deal With Notice of Understanding!!!!

Postby the_common_law_reverend_kenny » Sat Jan 02, 2010 10:27 pm

point being: Your law, your own... as you wish it to be, let it be so.

:peace:
SOVEREIGN: not controlled by outside forces: autonomous; self-governing; independent "a sovereign people" <> "by any peaceful administritive means necessary" - the way of the order.
the_common_law_reverend_kenny
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 773
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:18 pm
Location: Fidach Diplomatic Outpost near You

Re: UK Notary Refuses to Deal With Notice of Understanding!!!!

Postby ScotFree » Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:17 pm

Got a reply from Christopher Atkinson, Notary Public
~~~~~~~~~
Dear Dave

Yes. As you know I think the whole concept which you espouse is
misconceived, but leaving that to one side, the central point made in the
thread is entirely correct. Viz:- "These documents are not made valid by the
stamp of a Notary P. Not only is it a complete waste of fiat ££'s also it's
an act that undermines your very own standing."

I think that this summary is absolutely correct.

I hope you have a very Happy New Year,

Regards
Chris

Christopher Atkinson
Notary Public
Dave a Freeman, Scottish Highlands
http://www.freemanhighland.co.uk/
User avatar
ScotFree
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:49 pm
Location: Highlands, Scotland

Re: UK Notary Refuses to Deal With Notice of Understanding!!!!

Postby Arten » Wed Jan 06, 2010 5:09 pm

What was his reply in response to this thread? :puzz:
Arten
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:19 pm

Re: UK Notary Refuses to Deal With Notice of Understanding!!!!

Postby MrFrodo » Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:45 am

"These documents are not made valid by the
stamp of a Notary P.


No, but a court must recognise them as evidence without further a do, its just a shame we dont have Courts de jure yet.

It is of concern though that the notary does have an oath to ultimately the Queen, and many of us see her as very much part of the problem. So he has a point in that why would we want to use Notaries. That said, its a method of using their own system that is imposed upon us to seek remedy. Whats more does he not have an obligation to Notarise? Would be interested to learn more on this, there again there is always 3 good men

Frodo
You see what happens Larry? You see what happens when you fuck a stranger in the ass?
MrFrodo
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:30 pm

Re: UK Notary Refuses to Deal With Notice of Understanding!!!!

Postby OneManAndHisDog » Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:14 pm

To make a couple of points...

1. We don't technically need the seal of a Notary as others have said. The Notary represents a number of jurisdictions in which the Government and other Bodies operate. He can be considered the gatekeeper for documents that must pass into those jurisdictions. When you want to stand under some jurisdictions and need the paperwork to present your "standing" / "status" in that jurisdiction, and it cannot be made by your prior existing actions or words within the jurisdiction, then a Notary Seal would be required to pass documents & instruments into that jurisdiction (the internal affairs and created "Laws" of a Body, Society, Trust etc.).

2. A "Notary" is a created role and office with associated duty in that role and office. That duty is NOT to you but to the Body / Society / Trust under which the role was created for the Beneficiary (even if you may benefit indirectly, such as through the "public"). The man* playing that role has no duty to you (a flesh & blood human being standing at common law that is not subject to the jurisdiction). If you are claiming they have a duty to you, then produce a proof of claim that he/she has duties or obligations to you ( - common law works equally for all), which you cannot do because none exists. (BTW. Don't confuse the term "public" which is created legal fiction of a Body / Society / Trust, and thus subject to its created jurisdiction, with the term "people" that are real flesh & blood human beings at common law.)


I have my own seal, with red ink. I use this at common & customary law and have used it on a number of occasions to seal my documents and instruments (though most certainly never use it when standing as an Agent / Trustee of a Body as then I am not presenting myself but only re-presenting the Body under which I stand). BTW. To "seal" something means to stamp it with my seal, it does not mean that it is closed. A document can be open and sealed, it can be closed and sealed, or it can be open or closed whilst being unsealed (not stamped with a seal). The two are orthogonal.

I have done business before at common law. One man I had done business with, who is very old (in his 80s), has done business this way as his father did and his grand father, - he writes the contract, affixes a stamp in the top right corner and then seals it (stamps it with his red-ink seal) on top, and the bottom of the document has both our names each with a seal or sign. This is a true contract at common law, it does not reference or adhere to any one else's law, and so any body interfering in this private contract between two real flesh & blood human beings would be a third party intervener.

If you want a record of your seal, then you can get a notary to notarize your seal as belonging to you and keep that on record as a reference point. Mine isn't notarized though some people have done this.


When making a Claim of Right, the document is at common law (by a real flesh & blood human being) and there isn't a need to pass it into those jurisdictions. You can seal (or sign) your own document and get it witnessed if you wish.

Only if you want your Claim of Right at law to take on the status of "Lawful Excuse" internal to some jurisdictions (the Soceity / Body / Trust in question) would you need to pass it in through the gatekeeper (by Notary seal or other way - e.g. read into public record before a court). That's if you are wishing to act and take a standing in that jurisdiction and wish to retain certain rights whilst in that standing subject to the other various Statutes, Acts etc. of that jurisdiction.

(Note. The status of "Lawful Excuse" is jurisdictional, not at common law, though re-presenting a standing at common law - that is the Claim of Right - as a status internal to the jurisdiction.)

* By "man", I include both wereman and woman or any other forms of man.

( Registration of a right or property establishing it in Trust | Fundamentals of Trusts | Fundamentals of the common law etc. (1-5) )
OneManAndHisDog
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:10 am

Re: UK Notary Refuses to Deal With Notice of Understanding!!!!

Postby OneManAndHisDog » Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:30 pm

MrFrodo wrote:
"These documents are not made valid by the
stamp of a Notary P.


No, but a court must recognise them as evidence without further a do, its just a shame we dont have Courts de jure yet.

We have courts de-jure. They are "courts of record". It's just that people don't know how to use them and due to lack of knowledge do not cognize those courts for what they are and the services they provide to the people.

Even if finally cognized, then it is also a matter of learning the procedure of a "court of record" so that you may establish your standing (as one of the People - a real flesh & blood human being) and make claim or counterclaim and for that to proceed according to the common law.

Analogically. Even if you finally found out what a Tennis Court was, that's not enough to suddenly go in there and win. Cognizing a Court of Record as a court proceeding according to the common law is only the first step in then going about learning the actual procedure, which may take years of study as it took me. (See Bill Thornton's audio seminars and supporting material for standing in courts of record.)

MrFrodo wrote:It is of concern though that the notary does have an oath to ultimately the Queen, and many of us see her as very much part of the problem.

In what way is this the problem? First learn the nature of government. Government is a Trust, but is not the only Trust. Governance is by consent. Consent can be given by taking or assuming a standing subject to an existing Body / Society / Trust (such as in the created subjective general roles of "citizen", "resident", "alien", or more specific roles of "Minister", "President" etc.).

The 'King' or 'Queen' similarly is the name of a created role and office of the Crown, as played by a real flesh & blood human being. That human being in that role is bound by fiduciary duty and oath of office and so is a natural person. The Crown is a corporation and comprises the Executive Branch. The Crown itself is an artificial person.

The Notaries serve as gatekeepers for passing documents into the jurisdiction as administered by the Executive (the Crown) and so logically and reasonably have an Oath to that effect. Could one expect otherwise?

If you wish to pass documents into that jurisdiction then it has to pass in "authoritively" whereby the authors are those that hold the role of responsibility of that jurisdiction and are bound by fiduciary duty and oath thereunder.

If you wish to remain outside from under their jurisdiction, then there is no real need to established a "Lawful Excuse" therein to re-present your lawful "Claim of Right" at common law that you can establish in estoppel through prior Notice and Grace.
OneManAndHisDog
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:10 am

Re: UK Notary Refuses to Deal With Notice of Understanding!!!!

Postby MrFrodo » Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:35 pm

Thankyou muchly for the information Oneman (and your dog), pretty sure I follow you but I'll be sure to check out the audio you linked and will return with questions no doubt :P

Frodo
You see what happens Larry? You see what happens when you fuck a stranger in the ass?
MrFrodo
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:30 pm

Re: UK Notary Refuses to Deal With Notice of Understanding!!!!

Postby OneManAndHisDog » Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:05 pm

ScotFree wrote:...

Yes. As you know I think the whole concept which you espouse is
misconceived, but leaving that to one side, the central point made in the
thread is entirely correct. Viz:- "These documents are not made valid by the
stamp of a Notary P. Not only is it a complete waste of fiat ££'s also it's
an act that undermines your very own standing."

...

This is important and accurate.

Before people proceed with anything, they ought to be aware of what "standing" and "jurisdiction" actually means.

A jurisdiction is the created positive law of a Society that members / subjects of that society agree to stand under when they enter it.

Understanding Jurisdiction: 1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/jurisdiction.htm

Note that your "standing" decides the "jurisdiction", and the "jurisdiction" decides your "standing". The two are inseparable - The "jurisdiction" is the body of "Laws" of a created Society, and your "standing" is what body or bodies of "Law" you stand under or don't stand under (i.e. have no relation to).

When you stand out from all "jurisdictions" you stand at common law equal with your fellow man; not to kill or harm others, not to steal other's property, and not to dishonour your contracts, agreements & promises (your duties and obligations that you voluntarily take on).

Your "standing" decides the "jurisdiction" and the "jurisdiction" decides your "standing".

Common law true is not a jurisdiction but is where you stand when stand out from under all jurisdictions (out from under all created Bodies, Trusts, Societies etc.) and stand as a free man - one of the People - a flesh & blood human being spirit.


When you stand as a "citizen" or "resident" you are standing under and subject to to a body of law (the created "Laws" of a created Body, i.e. its "jurisdiction"). E.g. a "citizen of XYZ" stands under and subject to the created Body XYZ (a legal fiction) and thus under one of the created jurisdictions of XYZ ( - a "citizen of the United States" clearly stands under and subject to different "Laws" than a "citizen of the United Kingdom", even though the individual people that play the role and office of "citizen" in each of those Bodies; United States and United Kingdom respectively, stand at common law outside of that role).

Thus, if standing as a free man you create a Claim of Right, passing it into the jurisdiction and establishing a "Lawful Excuse" therein, then this undermines your standing as a "citizen of XYZ". The status has been changed and no longer functions as it ought to. Though with Civil Enforcement / Police Enforcement Officers harassing the general people and overstepping their jurisdiction, I'm not surprised this is the only path we have left to protect our unalienable rights at common law that are being infringed upon.

...was just writing to note that he's quite correct. :D
OneManAndHisDog
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:10 am

Re: UK Notary Refuses to Deal With Notice of Understanding!!!!

Postby OneManAndHisDog » Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:49 pm

MrFrodo wrote:Thankyou muchly for the information Oneman (and your dog), pretty sure I follow you but I'll be sure to check out the audio you linked and will return with questions no doubt :P

No problem, Frodo. :D

A court of record is a court proceeding according to the common law...
o Court of Record (1215.org)
o Court of Record (Wikipedia)
o Courts of Records in the United States <-- available to those standing as one of the People on the land

A court of record (common law) in its proper capacity is a superior court. Though can be used in a lessor capacity if you are standing in a respective role under society. (As I said, your "standing" is important and determines the jurisdiction.)

On the British Isles, the following courts of record are provided and maintained by the established Order w.r.t. to the Order of the Magna Carta, 1215, and the Declaration of Rights, 1688, amongst other Orders on Society (thus resulting in Bills therein on its subjects)...
-- The COP (Court of Protection) is a superior "court of record" and is able to set precedents. The court has the same powers, rights, privileges and authority as the High Court.
-- The Employment Appeal Tribunal is a superior "court of record" and therefore not subject to judicial review
-- The Crown Court is a superior "court of record".

...though that list certainly may not be exhaustive.


A Court of Record has 4 1/2 substantive requirements to qualify...
Bill Thornton wrote:A court of record is a court which must meet the following criteria:
1. generally has a seal
2. power to fine or imprison for contempt
3. keeps a record of the proceedings
4. proceeding according to the common law (not statutes or codes)
5. the tribunal is independent of the magistrate (judge)

Note that a judge is a magistrate and is not the tribunal. The tribunal is either the sovereign himself, or a fully empowered jury (not paid by the government)

...and...
Bill Thornton wrote:... the mere keeping of a record does not qualify any court to be a court of record. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, contributes to the confusion by listing only two of the four requirements for a court to qualify as a court of record. If you want the full explanation, see http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/courtrec.htm. In California, all courts are named as courts of record. However, if in an individual case they are not operated as courts of record, then they don't qualify as such. It takes more than a name to make a court of record. Even though a court may be keeping a record, it is a court of no record if it does not conform to the remaining three requirements for a lawful court of record.

...where a court that does not proceed according to the common law can only by Nisi Prius in nature, i.e. by prior agreement (see below).


Even though the courthouse and courtrooms (the venue) and the people therein may hold de-jure "courts of record", that doesn't necessarily mean that no other "Law" / "Jurisdiction" will be considered. If the other party introduces their "Law" or "Jurisdiction" into the court by claim, and you fail to object to it or challenge it (challenge their claimed jurisdiction), then you accept it by silent acquiescence.

An unrebutted claim before a court becomes Fact and Law. The "Facts" and the "Law" is what is agreed between the parties. Note also a "defence" is neither an objection nor a counterclaim (i.e. a simple "defence" is not a challenge, but is an argument). ( Do Not Enter A Plea )

Honor & Dishonor wrote:2 ways to dishonor a presentment
4. Argument
5. Silence


To correctly challenge jurisdiction (the "jurisdiction" or "law" the other party is claiming you are subject to and stand under) you must first establish your standing as "one of the People" (a real flesh & blood human being at common law) and establish "this court of record" in your claim (or counterclaim if they made first claim). In the claim (or counterclaim) you then continue by challenging their claimed jurisdiction over you by asking them to present a "proof of claim" (proof that they have jurisdiction and authority over you regarding this matter under discussion as they are claiming they do).

Also remember to remain in honour. Be sure to say you'd be happy to fulfil their requests on condition they present a proof of claim showing their jurisdiction (i.e. a "conditional offer").


Honor & Dishonor: 1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/honor-dishonor.htm


A court that is not proceeding according to the common law is a Nisi Prius Court. A Nisi Prius Court is said to be a court of no record (even though it may hold a "record" in its own jurisdiction, so don't let them fool you), and is by prior agreement.
o Nisi Prius Court (1215.org)

That "prior agreement" may come about in two ways...
1. From contract, for example under a "license" that you applied for, from your previous words and actions with your fellow man or an Agent / Trustee of a created Body, or,
2. From your "standing" in a created 'role' or 'office' under a Body / Society / Trust etc., or use of private property (that you may only receive equitably), from your previous words and actions with said Body.

-The first is Contractual Obligation at law.
-The second is Fiduciary Duty in equity (Trusts) and Oaths to general ad-hoc Bodies / Societies etc..

Both of these are binding through your previous words and actions and are how you come to stand under some created "Law" (of a contract / license etc.) or "Jurisdiction" (body of "Law" of a created Body / Society / Trust etc.).


An example of the second submission is when you stand in the created role and office of "citizen" or "resident", and also of "alien" after signing a declaration to stand subject when entering a foreign country.

If you want to retain all your unalienable rights at common & customary law, then don't stand subject to a Body / Trust / Society as a "citizen", "resident" (RES-IDENT in commerce) or any kind of created role of office thereunder that is subject to that particular Body / Trust / Society's internal laws - its statutes etc., instead, stand as "one of the People" - a real flesh & blood human being.

It is the People that created this fictitious Bodies (the legal fictions) and then it is these Bodies (through some one standing as an Agent / Trust giving that Body consciousness) that then created roles and offices such as "citizen", "knight", "baron", "resident" (w.r.t. commerce), and other artificial juristic persons under the colour of law.

On the nature of a Nisi Prius Court, - a court by prior agreement...
Bill Thornton wrote:"Nisi prius" is a Latin term. Individually, the words mean thus:

"Prius" means "first." For example, "Prius vitiis laboravimus, nunc legibus" means "We labored first with vices, now with laws." Quoted from Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition.

"Nisi" means "unless." Quoting from B.L.D., 5th Ed.: "The word is often affixed as a kind of elliptical expression, to the words 'rule,' 'order,' 'decree,' 'judgment,' or 'confirmation,' to indicate that the adjudication spoken of is one which is to stand as valid and operative unless the party affected by it shall appear and show cause against it, or take some other appropriate step to avoid it or procure its revocation."

A rule of procedure in courts is that if a party fails to object to something, then it means he agrees to it. A nisi procedure is a procedure to which a person has failed to object (show cause) and therefore it follows that the person agrees to it. Or, conforming to the format in the preceding paragraph, a nisi procedure is a procedure to which a party agrees UNLESS he objects or shows cause.

A "nisi prius" procedure is a procedure to which a party FIRST agrees UNLESS he objects.

A "nisi prius court" is a court which will proceed unless a party objects. The agreement to proceed is obtained from the parties first.

It is a matter of right that one may demand to be tried in a court of record. By sheer definition, that means that the court must proceed according to the common law (not the statutory law). The only way that a court can suspend that right is by the prior agreement of the parties. For tactical reasons the state prefers to proceed according to statutory law rather than common law. The only way it can do that is to obtain the prior agreement from the parties. That is the primary (but hidden) purpose of the arraignment procedure. During arraignment the court offers three choices for pleading (guilty, not guilty, nolo contendre). But all three choices lead to the same jurisdiction, namely a statutory jurisdiction, not a common law jurisdiction. That is to say, the question to be decided is whether or not the statute was violated, not whether the common law was violated.

The dictionary does not lie in its definition of a nisi prius court.
But it does omit some important information. Namely, that it is a court that has been set up by prior agreement assumed because when the three statutory options [guilty, not guilty, nolo contendre] were presented to the defendant he chose one. He thus failed to enforce his right to be prosecuted in a court of record.

Once the agreement (as evidenced in the arraignment proceeding) has been secured, the court proceeds under statutory authority. Now the court ceases to be a court of record and becomes a court of no record by prior lack of objection, i.e. by prior agreement implied by failure to object..

Naturally, after securing the agreement, a nisi prius court can move on to examine the facts with a judge and jury, etc. etc.

George H. Cullins wrote:Mr. Thornton says that the murderers have entered into a contract to go outside the rules of the "codes" even though they don't know it. Since a contract is an AGREEMENT between two or more people, how can a contract be made without the parties knowing about it.

Bill Thornton replies:

Yes. If the party never objects, then he must have agreed. Surely you have heard of appeals that were lost because objection was not timely made. The appellate court treats unopposed actions by the trial court as if those actions were agreed to by the party who untimely objected.

George H. Cullins wrote:He says the Penal Codes are not the "law." My understanding is that the law is the statutes (codes) plus the law made by appellate judges every time they make a decision. So if the Penal Code is not the law, what is?

Bill Thornton replies:

When the word "law" is used without qualification, then it means common law. An "attorney at law" means one who practices common law (notwithstanding the fact that modern attorneys are not trained about the subject). An "attorney in equity" is one who practices before an equity court. In the U.S. 99.99999% of all proceedings are in equity, which is why the judges may take liberties.

Statutes are expressions of will from the legislature. To keep you confused, they append the word "law" to it. Naturally, you are supposed to then believe that statutory law is the same as and equal to common law (it isn't). Codes are nothing more than a collection of statutes and other rules arranged by subject instead of being arranged by date.
Law beats statutes; statutes beat codes.

A judge exercises his discretion. Because he is authorized by the statutes to exercise his discretion, most appeals of judges' decisions will fail. The appellate courts generally will not second guess a trial court's use of discretion.

In a court of record, a judge has no discretion. Discretion is reserved to the independent tribunal.


That's enough on courts of record and the contrasting Nisi Prius Courts for those that are subject to some prior Law or Jurisdiction through prior agreement (from your prior words or actions). Now on how to actually establish your standing as one of the People and protect your unalienable rights at common law...


Seminars by Bill Thornton ( 1215.org )

o Introduction to Sovereignty presented by Bill Thornton (3 mins 10 secs)

These audio extract from the video seminars are general discussions on Sovereignty, Motions and Forms as given in the supporting material...
1. Sovereignty and related subjects (8 hours)
2. Motions and related procedure (8 hours)
3. Forms and related procedure (8 hours)

Video seminars: DVD's of past seminars

Supporting material: Overview | Foundation | Example | Jurisdiction | Procedure | Jury

The "Procedure" link contains a significant amount of substance, including the Nitty Gritty Law Library and an example of an Action at Law.

( Some notes in this thread from questions asked: www.tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=906 )
.
OneManAndHisDog
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:10 am

PreviousNext

Return to General chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests