Jurisdiction. Does the court you are in have it?

[artsychic2000]

who's the guy talking in this video??? I'd appreciate it

[wordprophet]

I can't understand the audio in this video. I'm afraid the message was lost...

[Tactikalguy1]

@wordprophet ........Looks like you are the only one that lost it.

[wordprophet]

@Tactikalguy1

My apologies...I just tried it again, and I can hear it fine...I don't know what happened the first time...

[NsaSpecialOps]

can you please spell out the bridge document he is referring to between the maga carta and the constitution i cant understand what he is saying fully. comma mata something ?? thanks

[mrtundra45]

American justice is a scam

[Dewdaahman]

Free = no cost or obligation.. a box beside the road, after a yardsale, says free on it.. that means "come get it.." in the dictionary's today there are 15 definations of free and 2 of them include a cost..

[BenZeneProject]

I have served on a jury. I had no peers among the fellow jurors, the defendants, the plaintiffs, nor the court. Yet I was somehow deemed a peer! WTF am I supposed to do now?

Thumbs up if you think the system is F'd up and about to Collapse.

[txflyguy40]

great fish, You talk as if you know statutory law or federal rules in civil litigation ad to that you would be right to say the judge can lawfully order your arrest but you fail to understand is that the judge has no authority to do so but only under inditment of grand jury. you need to understand that common law people are free from Maritime law as it law within the commerce codes. Commow laws stand to the people exactly where the constitution gets it's standing, and the people autohorize gov.

[Tadow001]

So if i go into a court of Traffic (fake court). When I walk in, do i demand common law jurisdiction or do I have to motion the traffic court for common law jurisdiction??

[idsoverign]

f.y.i, we have this year re-established the de jure grand jury in all 50 states!! the republic is back and the revolution has started, we the people again have standing!



[tazzym1]

This is Awesome - Great vid - I hope Many more of our Sovereign beings (Brothers& Sisters) hear this valid TRUTH - Peace :) UK

[edtheball69]

the bill of rights is even a common law statute its just as good

[debegar]

Entries categorized as ‘p2 1/3 Judge David Wynn Miller Undefeated in Courts Power of Quantum Communication in Law’

[debegar]

Entries categorized as ‘p2 1/3 Judge David Wynn Miller Undefeated in Courts Power of Quantum Communication in Law’

[thegreatfish]

The guy speaking is a bit misleading. While it is true you could consent to personal jurisdiction by failing to challenge it early enough at trial, consent is not the only way a court gets jurisdiction. If you're being charged with a crime, like a traffic violation, then the court already has jurisdiction because you were "tagged" in the jurisdiction when you were given your ticket. Everything else he says about common law is incorrect. Every court in the U.S. is a common law court.

[micanut48]

@thegreatfish I think that your last statement is wrong. Most courts in US are admiralty courts, and court rooms are built and structured in such way as to satisfy admiralty law requirements. Typical traffic court is nothing but admiralty court, where banker (judge) handles the exchange of money from you to the state (corporation) that he represents. It's all giant scam to get revenues. The entire room conforms to the ship structure. Once you cross it, you gave up your constitutional rights.

[kmikesell]

Where did you get this?

[Tactikalguy1]

@kmikesell ............ I went to a seminar and recorded it.

[kmikesell]

@Tactikalguy1 What seminar? I listened to that guy on his website but lost the info. do you have is website or name so I can find him?

[coreyeib]

@Tactikalguy1 this gentleman can often be found at the Freedom Forum in OC. He is the creator of the website 1215 dot org - very valuable info and many hrs of presentations and semonars.

[Maxheadroom0]

By the way... Article (1) sec. (8) of the constitution mentions the Law of Nation's.

I suggest you read it and get familiar with it.

You have to know your posterity, or blood line in order to form a new social compact.

No offense intended, but maybe you still have things to learn. Seek the truth and let it reveal itself to you, don't let yourself be swindled by the masters anymore. After all they have been doing this stuff for hundreds of years and they know how to deceive you.

God's Peace.

[Maxheadroom0]

You cannot claim the rights expressed in the Constitution as your own, because you are not of the posterity!

In other words, you did not sign it so how can you claim right to it. The constitution is a Compact/Treaty, International agreement or contract signed by those who created it and only those who's signatures are on that contract, have right to it! You must draft another like it, and have everyone who wants right to it, sign it!

Source: The Law of Nations & International Law

[thegreatfish]

@Maxheadroom0 This is incorrect. The constitution states that it applies to all citizens of the United States. If you're a citizen of the United States, you can claim the rights expressed in the constitution. It's not even a contract. Why does everyone think every legal matter is based on a contract? A contract isn't required in every court case. In reality, contracts make up a very small percentage of all cases. Not every legal matter is a contract!

[AceOfHeart2012]

@thegreatfish Yes it is. You are incorrect. All is commerce. All commerce is contract. No contract, no controversy. No controversy, no case. Continue your study.

[thegreatfish]

@AceOfHeart2012 I'm sorry. You're right, I'm wrong. Oh, and while we're on the subject, I could use your help. When someone commits a murder, where is the contract that lets us charge the killer? I guess in every murder case there was an explicit agreement between the murderer and the victim that they wouldn't kill each other, right? Just give me a response when you figure that one out. I can't wait to bask in your vast knowledge.

[AceOfHeart2012]

OK. Murder is a common law crime. Yes there's a victim, however, in commerce, even murder is just a Penal Code violation. In commerce when you are tried for murder, you're not tried for killing someone, you're tried because you deprived the government of million$ in potential revenue. This is how I grasp it. Seriously, keep digging. I'm not making this up. Of course there's no contract between the victim and the perp, but at trial it's THE PEOPLE (not the victim) vs. THE PERP There's the clue.

[thegreatfish]

@AceOfHeart2012 I'm sorry, did you just say there is no contract in murder? Doesn't that contradict your last post where you said no contract, no case?

And if the government is only trying murderers for depriving them of millions of dollars in revenue, why would they spend even more money to put them in prison for the rest of their lives? Why not just fine them to recoup the money they lost? I'm sure the youtube videos that supplied you with this info were extremely credible. Please, inform me.

[AceOfHeart2012]

@thegreatfish You clearly have a ways to go. I think you're one of those on YouTube who just likes to argue. I don't argue. Keep studying. I will be vindicated. Peace...

[thegreatfish]

@AceOfHeart2012 Who's arguing? I was just asking you to clarify parts of your information that were painfully illogical. I did what any person should do when presented with information that appears completely contradictory to what they already understand to be true. I challenged the position to test the validity. It only took you two posts to completely contradict yourself and stand down, so I guess your position has no basis in fact. Where do you think vindication could possibly come from?

[MrEvilsun]

@thegreatfish Ace is sorta right, I had it explained to me by an ex-lawyer, he said that the potential bond and tax yield are the damages, and that they use commerical law to go after the offending party. The agreement is the birth/berth contract, as all SSN/SIN contracts fall under admiralty and UCC laws. I came to understand later that this is part of their book balancing policy, allowing the IMF (IRS,CRA, etc), and the Gov, to fix their ledgers. Its a crazy world....Be safe out there)

[thegreatfish]

@MrEvilsun If an ex-lawyer told you that, he's probably an ex-lawyer because he was disbarred for making frivolous arguments.

[MrEvilsun]

@thegreatfish Hmmm, not quite TROLL, I responded with valid intelligent information, gleaned from a very successful individual, who retired and withdrew his name from the bar. Take some time to read about it, if you arent being payed as a dis-information agent that is. I know his background, and education, and value honest information, what is your legal education and background, did you work in law fro 30 years?

[thegreatfish]

@MrEvilsun They don't use commercial law. That's ridiculous. They have something called criminal law which operates far more effectively for prosecuting crimes. There's no need to rationalize charging someone with a crime with admiralty law or UCC mumbo jumbo. They just prosecute you for committing a crime. Easy Peezy. Be wary of anyone who claims the world is run by UCC or admiralty law. The Gov can do anything they want by passing legislation, so it would be completely tedious and unnecessary.

[Tadow001]

@thegreatfish You must be a lawyer who's job is in jeopardy.. No prosecution without a Grand Jury... Ease Peezy... When a grand jury is used, that's common law jurisdiction. Speeding is not a crime because there's no victim, who got hurt??? Murder is a Crime, nbecause someone has lost a life.. Corpus Delcti...

[thegreatfish]

@Tadow001 You don't understand the meaning of the term "common law", and you don't understand how corpus delicti is properly used. Generally speaking, when you commit a crime you go to jail until your trial. Traffic tickets are an exception. Police are allowed to let you leave if you sign the ticket, which puts you on notice that you've been served to appear in court. If you refuse to sign the ticket, they're supposed to take you to the station until your trial date.

[Tadow001]

@thegreatfish Wrong, you are issued a summons. Blacks Law Dictionary defines Summons as equal to an "Invitation". They need you to appear, that is their main goal. Once your in their Jurisdiction without challenging the jurisdiction, your screwed...

[thegreatfish]

@Tadow001 That's true. That's why if you intend to challenge personal jurisdiction, you need to do so immediately. Of course, if you live in the state or you were served while present within the state, your challenge is going to lose. You don't need a contract for the court to have jurisdiction.

[bonbuttercup]

@thegreatfish You are 150% incorrect. Every legal matter is a contract. But go ahead and keep signing your traffic tickets "promising to appear in court".

[thegreatfish]

@bonbuttercup This information is freely available in any state's code. Just do a google search, look for the title associated with traffic tickets. Under the complaint section it will clearly state that the officer is suppose. How do you think they arrest people for murder? Do you think every murderer is given a contract to sign before the police take them away?

[bonbuttercup]

@thegreatfish Kind of like gravity. You can believe in it or not... your choice.

[thegreatfish]

@bonbuttercup You're absolutely right. On the one hand, we have a mountain of evidence that says gravity exists and crime is not based on contracts, and on the other hand, we have no evidence that gravity is a fallacy or that you can't be prosecuted for a crime without a contract. So the question is... Do you believe in gravity? Or don't you?

[thegreatfish]

@bonbuttercup It also seems prudent to note that you can't send a person to prison for violating a contract, so it wouldn't even make sense to claim crimes are contract based. If this were true, no one would ever go to prison. But apparently you don't believe in gravity either, so there you go.

[Tadow001]

@bonbuttercup So how do you sign the traffic ticket or the (Summons = Invitation in black law dictionary) Do you sign: CONTRACT NOT ACCEPTED?? or what?? Under Duress... How should you sign your traffic ticket so you don't have to appear at all??

[bonbuttercup]

@Tadow001 Try not to. They'll threaten to arrest you. No contract signed under duress is valid. None. Period. You can't force a person to put their signature on anything against their will. Basic Contract Law. After they threaten to arrest me, I usually take the ticket and write all over the ticket "UNDER DURESS, SIGNED AGAINST MY WILL, THREATENED TO BE ARRESTED" etc. and I TOTALLY deface the ticket. Then I sign "UNDER DURESS" near the box, but not in it. NEVER sign in the box.

[thegreatfish]

@bonbuttercup It's not a contract! It's notice of process! You commit a crime when you speed. They either arrest you and make you wait in jail until your trial, or you can sign the ticket acknowledging that you're aware you need to appear in court and go on your way. The idea that every crime is contractually based is absurd, and you're just going to get people thrown in jail. If every crime is a contract, then how do you explain murder convictions? Do murderers all sign contracts?

[bonbuttercup]

@thegreatfish A speeding infraction [civil] is a CRIME [criminal]? Really? You may want to do some research on the difference between criminal matters and civil matters. Believe what you want; I have a clean driving record and have been pulled over and cited numerous times.

[thegreatfish]

@bonbuttercup An infraction is not a true civil matter, but so what if it was? Do we need a contract before a person can be sued in civil court? That's great to know I can wreck your car and burn down your house and you can't do anything about it since we don't have a contract.

[StcNick]

@thegreatfish actually being fined for damaging ones property does not require contracts

[thegreatfish]

@StcNick That's true, but neither does being fined for speeding.

[StcNick]

@thegreatfish signing a speeding ticket isnt a contract. The officer is accusing you of a crime and by signing the ticket your just saying youll show up to court or take care of it, by not signing it you admit guilt and agree the officers accusations are correct. you have to sign and show up, then after your there you agrue if its even a real "crime" your being charged with. then you either contract with the court on if its valid law by saying guilty, not guilty..etc. If it not law dont plea

[thegreatfish]

@StcNick You don't admit guilt by not signing it. You just fail to acknowledge that you received it.

[StcNick]

@thegreatfish no wrong. If i accuse you of a crime and do it in writing and i have a clause in it that says if you do not respond you admit guilt then you have admitted guilt by not responding. It sucks but its law

[thegreatfish]

@StcNick The clause says if you don't show up to the trial a guilty plea will be entered against you. It doesn't take effect for failing to sign the ticket, only for skipping the court date. There's also a difference between having a guilty plea entered against you and admitting guilt. I've had friends who skipped court dates and were still able to challenge the ticket despite having a guilty plea entered against them. This doesn't happen if you show up to court and admit guilt.

[Tactikalguy1]

@thegreatfish .... Wrong again sir. You are not presumed guilty until innocent. It is the other way around. A warrant is put out for your arrest so that they can get you in court in order to be charged. Thought you would know this.

[thegreatfish]

@Tactikalguy1 You are not presumed guilty. I said a guilty plea is entered against you. There is a difference. You know, I posted several cases on your corpus delicti video that said your conclusions were wrong. Why didn't you ever respond to those comments? I guess they were a little tougher to tackle.

[Tactikalguy1]

@thegreatfish .... funny how your posts did not counter mine. I have posted several myself that you never responded to yet I am supposed to respond to yours? Besides, show me where in california law it states that a guilty plea is entered against you when you fail to appear. That is too funny. Shows how ignorant you are.

[thegreatfish]

@Tactikalguy1 It's called a default judgment and it happens all the time. In many states you'll get a guilty verdict rendered against you. In California, they charge you $300 for failure to appear in court, which is a misdemeanor on its own. CA penal code 1214.1

I suppose you'll disappear again, just like after I shut down your corpus delicti argument.

[Tactikalguy1]

@thegreatfish ... Shows how much you know.... A failure to appear is not a guilty plea entered on you. You are trying to change what typed earlier. Failure to appear is just that. I failed to appear. I always get them and they dissappear after my motions anyway. It is bogus and wont stand when appealed. So stop trying to change what you said as usual. No court can enter a guilty plea on your behalf. You are con- fused!

[bigdaddyrollingstone]

@Tactikalguy1

what motions do u use to disapeer them....i got one

t u

[gorgeousdzastr]

@Tactikalguy1 If you "fail" to appear, there will be an arrest warrant issued for you. Then what? What "motions" do you file? You said It is bogus, and wont stand. so now that I'm sitting in jail (rhetorical) how to I let them know what they are doing is bogus?

I believe there is validity to this, but nothing explained well enough for me to try.

Got a civil case coming up soon.

[gorgeousdzastr]

@thegreatfish Corpus Delicti argument? This must be like a traffic offense or something with "no victim"? So there is no such thing as a corpus deliciti argument?

[thegreatfish]

@gorgeousdzastr There is a corpus delicti argument, but the test Taktical guy is using is wrong. The question is not "is there a victim"? The question is "Has a crime been committed"? So if we use speeding as an example, the test is not whether or not someone was victimized by the act of speeding, the test is whether or not someone was actually speeding. This is why his argument fails in court. He should be asking the court to show him evidence that someone was speeding.

[gorgeousdzastr]

@thegreatfish oh so the evidence of speeding is an injury? to whom? A fiction of law? I thought you couldn't harm a fiction. <maxims?

[thegreatfish]

@gorgeousdzastr The Corpus Delicti does not ask for evidence of an injury, it asks for evidence of a crime. Most courts use the injury the victim has received as evidence of the crime because in most crimes there is an injury, but this is not always true. In an arson case, the evidence of the crime might be a burned house, but in a case of malicious threats or attempted murder, there may be no injury, so the court must use a different source of evidence to prove there was a crime committed.

[gorgeousdzastr]

@StcNick bull shit. Signing a ticket is absolutely a contract. You MUST sign it, but you can sign it Under threat and duress which nullifies the contract.

[StcNick]

@gorgeousdzastr its a contract but its not the contract you think it is, signing a ticket is a contract with you and the officer saying i acknowledge you have accused me of a crime and i will show up at court to handle it, it doesnt mean you admit guilt of the crime or that you agree with the charge or even the law, it just means you acknowledge somebody is saying you have committed a crime and you will resolve it. You can sign under duress and protest yes but your still have to go to court

[gorgeousdzastr]

@StcNick a few weeks ago, I was pulled for seat belt violation (code blah blah) and handed a ticket. I didn't even have to sign it, in fact there was no place to "sign" on the ticket.

I asked him where is the agreement that I have committed a crime. He said basically I had to go see the judge about it.

My take on this is that there are no set rules for these re-venue collectors simply because it is of course "private corporations". Issue as many tickets as you can so they still have a jobs.

[StcNick]

@thegreatfish actually no "crimes" are contractual. "Crimes" are in common law and common law deals with property damage. "Contractual crimes" are in what is known as contract law or commercial/admiral law. Which i believe is now just lumped into UCC law. In simple terms if you havent damaged any property you havent commited a "crime", if your speeding thats not damaged property so your not in common law, your under UCC law which is contractual. Your "corporate persons" is subject to UCC.

[gorgeousdzastr]

@StcNick Majic word.."corporate PERSON" But one has to know how to "move the contract" in order to remain outside their jurisdiction. Contracts are dynamic.

[thegreatfish]

@StcNick Actually, there are no common law crimes. All crimes today are codified in statute by the legislatures of each state. There are also some federal crimes defined by Congress in the United States Code. UCC is not law, it is a guideline for contractual relationships only. It does not apply to criminal law, and it only applies to contractual relationships if the state adopts the UCC as part of their code. Speeding is a crime defined by state statute, and not by common law or UCC.

[GnosticNinja]

@thegreatfish "Actually, there are no common law crimes"

Actually, actually, um, yes there is.

Maybe what you meant to say was; 'there are no Common Law courts?

"UCC is not law"

Actually, yes it is.

British Maritime Admiralty the LAW of commerce on the open Seas.

W's*admiraltylawguide*com/fore­ignlaw*html

[thegreatfish]

@GnosticNinja All crimes are codified in statute nowadays, with the exception of a few minor things, like contempt. Every single court is a common law court because they all have the ability to apply common law. UCC is not law, it is suggested law, created to simplify doing business across state lines. It is only law if a state decides to adopt it. A brief google search for "Common Law" and "UCC" will help resolve much of your confusion.

[GnosticNinja]

@thegreatfish says:

"You commit a CRIME when you speed."

"Actually, there are no common law crimes."

"Every single court is a common law court"

watch?v=wh0XTF-mbjg

A speeding ticket is because the State is the owner of nearly every vehicle on the road.

Everyone has a "Certificate OF Title" NOT an actual "Title".

It's like you borrowed it per condition; a Licensed agreement.

medicolegal*tripod*com/speedli­mits*htm#4

[thegreatfish]

@GnosticNinja Sorry, but that's a load of paranoid conspiracy mumbo jumbo. The reason the State can regulate the roads is not because they own your vehicle. It's far simpler than that. The reason they can regulate the roads is because they own the roads. Any public road owned by a state or city may be regulated by that state or city. It's perfectly reasonable for the owner of property to do what they wish with that property. See? Perfect explanation, no conspiracy required.

[GnosticNinja]

@thegreatfish So because I own my car (like you assume) then they have NO authority to ever take it away without my permission. Right?

Because, it doesn't belong to them, that would be stealing.

If "they own the roads" as you assert then it is safe to assume they own you too.

Sorry my bad, I was erroneously taught this was a Constitutional Republic

where We The People owned the land.

You're a slave Neo.

[Moeb424]

It all boils down to filing the right tax forms along with the presented debt. Just tax forms. For instance now, being tax season, would be a good time to file some 1099 OIDs (Which MUST be ordered from IRS since a special ink is used and you could be fined if you use one printed from the internet)

[DANTHETUBEMAN]

the law system is multi layerd, and that is just starting to become more comen knowlage. but all theas layers have there oun rule book, and if you dont enact all the rules and rights available 2 you thay dont mind at all. aaannnd if you have already fallen in to the leagal gerisdiction of one leval then thay proces you by thouse rules.

[Moeb424]

Step 1: DO NOT FILE A UCC-1 FINANCING STATEMENT! Unless you're done benefiting from your strawman.

Seperating yourself from your STRAWMAN will only make it hard for you to reap it's benefits...

Begin with the Accepted for Value (A4V) process to discharge your debt and get some of your money back that you've put into the system...

[theshotgunhero]

@Moeb424

i was thinking about doing that! thanks!!

is a UCC-1 FS the ONLY way to seperate from your strawman? i want to keep it but don't want courts/police to confuse ME with IT!

[Moeb424]

@ theshotgunhero... why would you want to seperate from your Strawman... you and it are supposed to work together... to keep the "Law Enforcers" from harassing you- you have to learn the difference between Commercial Law and Common Law and enforce your own rights when presented with Commercial Law penalties.

[Moeb424]

I think that's why a lot of people don't get that far with it because the life we've become accustomed to doesn't permit the time to do it so a lot of personal sacrifice is required... in my opinion

[VerifiedNews]

@Moeb424 I agree

[theshotgunhero]

@Moeb24 Have you got an A4V to work? Watching Rob Menard vid's and it seems like ppl are coming up against walls... would personally like to know how it works 'cos so many of my community are losing houses, jobs etc.

And essentially a better knowledge of Commercial and Common Law is what we all need? In your opinion? :)

[hiphopper420w]

look into the strawman ;-)

[carsearch2001]

This stuff does not work and it is always the same claim that "a guy once did it" based upon the constitution; ya right. This is the same "type" of defense that Wesley Snipes was tricked into following against the IRS when he didn't pay his taxes - he was forced to pay taxes with penalty. Another "idea" was that your home mortgage didn't have to be paid anymore - the banks took the homes despite the claims by the homeowners about constitutional rights.

[Moeb424]

it's not that it doesn't work there just isn't enough information on a step by step process... it definitely works though. Just have to know what to do, what not to do, and when to do it

[OneManAndHisFiction]

A "court of record" is a court proceeding according to the common law.

Government is a Trust. If making a claim or counterclaim against one of your public servants, be sure to stand as one of the People (a sovereign and a Beneficiary of the Trust that is Government) and file in a Court of Record (at common law).

Avoid standing as a "citizen of the United States" (a created role and "office" and a subject of their jurisdiction in equity) that has no standing at common law.

See: 1215 org

[krxyt]

carsearch2001 Are you a signatory to the constitution? Probly not and either am I. Since it doesn't belong to us we can't claim it as ours (nowhere on the constitution is my name!). I could see how that might lead to contempt. I have friends who have declaired their own rights and freedoms by notice to the government and they have been achknowledged with acceptance.

[carsearch2001]

These guys crack me up, I have watched people try this "I stand on the constitution" stuff in court and the judge sent them straight to jail for contempt. Although once, I did meet a guy who had is divorce, "dismissed with prejudice" and no child support, alimony, etc. I don't know if he was being forthrighteous on his account of the trial.

[freedombiteback]

Freedom is not free !....So yes they will still lock you up,but that does'nt mean their right....Ps Fear (jail) is a means of con-trol...So if your scared (sheeple) of being locked up,for standing up for your rights, then your promoting their tyranny..........

[TheRadiastral]

amen

[Cstrife234]

@freedombiteback They can lock you up and beat you down, against your will, but as long as you don't sign shit, they gotta let you go eventually. That's when you sue the fuck out of them for unlawful arrest. When they try to make you sign stuff, they'll up the fines, up the charges, but don't believe it. Don't sign it. Once you sign it, you basically sign your rights away.

[Tactikalguy1]

antes he would do that. Ahora meto papeles para que bote el caso. Si lo hace todavia, digo que ese huey es el defendant porque el es el quien dijo not guilty. I havent read the judicial Canons todavia. Eso te dice lo que pueden hacer los judges.

[krxyt]

Protesting is one method some will use to keep the contract away from a courts jurisdiction. This must be done by due course. If the drawee, or agent of the payee of the bill, does not honour your notice / protest, a notary can then hold court and grant you a default judgement by estoppl, that judgement is a negotiable instrument they cannot deny. You simply accept the ticket with conditions that they will never satisfy, such as; proof of claim, damage, victim, witness.

[krxyt]

As long as you are trying to act lawfully and trying to establish whether or not it is a legitimate claim, it really has no reason to go into a court room because due course has not yet been completed.

[courtinjusticeuk]

Must see

youtube com

copy and paste at the URL bar

watch?v=KUMmRAIC_3o

watch?v=bJfAID3FyHk

watch?v=5_WQU9blWaY

[krxyt]

Just like a violation ticket it has ways for you to dispute or deal with it written on the back, if you accept this appearent remedy you also accept the offer (ticket). Disputing gives them jurisdiction, and no, you cannot plea not guilty and win. What you want to do is like Tactikalguy1 says, "sign under duress", later you can take that ticket, which is also a 'bill of exchange', and just 'protest' it. I don't know if you guys have notary public's there but look in the notary act see 'protest'

[FCKEVRY1]

Can you give me some keywords to research about this?

[Tactikalguy1]

just google right to travel. Also, i believe filing criminal complaints when public servants break the law and then suing them helps them not want to violate your rights or their oath of office.

[thered702]

@FCKEVRY1 watch "no consent=no rule"great video! and "i do not consent" with irene gravenhorst. they both are not in us, but common law is here too. nh has a bunch of activists. good info.

[Freihals1]

also when it comes to freedom of travel David Myrland is really goot at this webiste address jurisinformatics [DOT] com then click on the link for jurisinformatics [DOT] com

[Freihals1]

The supreme court has ruled that the 50 states are countries with respect to each other but under the 14th amendment system you are participating in rebellion against your de jure country when you vote, through contract as well and that is why you have to pay IRS and so forth.. and are responsible for the national debt. watch all 6 vids for more info please watch?v=G1B33IvnJ4M

[MRMASTER357]

You seem to be knowledgable on this matter do you have a email address?

[vancerz]

I love all this info. thanks agin for posting this info.

[wind0wninja]

In Maritime there is no "not guilty" plea. In Maritime you are guilty of the facts. But you better have some facts.

[mullahaliackbar]

And if this stuff doesn't work, just tell the judge to go fuck himself...that will teach him!!! hehehehe

[Cstrife234]

@mullahaliackbar hahaha, better to get ready to run like hell.

[Tactikalguy1]

For those that do not believe what I post..... To them I say, I have gotten out of a misdemeanor that was changed to an infraction. I went to jail for it but when I got out I beat in court and now will be suing the officer, judge and city for violating my rights. That simple. I get out of their fictional world and make them jump into mine. They hardly do but when it happens, I now have jurisdiction over them. Believe it or not, I have lived it and still am when I get tickets.

[crazyeddie31]

to keep the judge from getting jurisdiction and to FORCE him/her to get into common law jurisdiction ive heard (but have not tried it yet since i havent had a ticket in 7years) that its as simple as going to the "attourney general" (main scumbag for your district) and get a certified copy of the "judges oath of office" for the judge hearing your case. enter it into evidence as exhibit "A"

he will then be a "judge" and must uphold the organic constitution and not a "administrator"

[blackyukon2001]

How do I get in touch with the attourney general???

[Tactikalguy1]

I would google it. I would put the city and state then the word attorney general

[Tactikalguy1]

That is what my paperwork would say.

[anyusmoon1]

I'm here on 'special appearance'?

[KeeperCloud]

Interesting info man.

[Tactikalguy1]

If you plead not guilty, You have contracted with the court.

[micanut48]

@Tactikalguy1 OK, so what exactly you do? How do you plea? Do you request common law trial or court proceeding? If you have longer answer, click on my nick and describe it there, if you can. I am still lost in an avalanche of knowledge that I am accumulating lately and I am tyring to sort it all out in order to come up with effective defense strategy in case I will get a ticket in future. Thanks

[Felix1085]

Great info!