Robert Mendard | Freeman on the Land | Common Law | Special Appearance | Abatement

[TheFarmerGraham]

go Rob!

[realskinnynews]

/watch?v=etMbirxujb8&feature=c­hannel_video_title

[1778owen]

Love this guy...God Bless you Rob...

[brettdusek]

@justaman6972 Therefore, Abatement became an interest as it gives you a remedy to appearing, since you are telling them you'll only show up if they correct flaws in their proceeding. It is very similar to the default method, as you are establishing conditions to your presence and win by silence, dispute, or dismissal. What's nice about abatement, is that it's well understood what it is. Combining that with conditions of sovereignty, definition of words, fee schedules, makes it powerful.

[justaman6972]

@brettdusek I agree it is the proverbial A bomb, or a genie in a bottle. I have been assisting a friend in blasting a DA using these methods and sovereignty as well. The DA is clueless as to how to answer the briefs. Its too funny. This should be the last visit as well. If not the guy is going to have a cornary I swear. I have a ton of stuff to share with you if you msg me I will provide an email. Peace

[brettdusek]

@justaman6972 I agree with you. However, having attempted to use this method on two occasions. The first, it was literally ignored as it was not known by the magistrate/judge. The second, was stone-walled by a court rule which I had overlooked that said you must provide written notice of special appearance prior to the proceeding. Which both situations could have been likely won in appeals. I'm working out how to beat the court without having to enter their gates...

[justaman6972]

@brettdusek One may answer in the form of a demurr or in a motion called ( failure to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted and a motion to dismiss. The court must have standing in order to proceed, or there must be an injured party, not the state though, as it is a corporate fiction. message me and I will send you a tons of stuff. Peace...

[justaman6972]

@brettdusek I don't know where you got this info in the description,but one can enter the courtroom and be on special visitation,not generally appearing. As a special vititor I am there to ensure that my court is running correctly.One cannot appear anymore than vanish,its all word art anyway ,and theatre.However the default method with an affidavit of truth works everytime when declaring a sovereign status,they simply cannot rebut this line by line so they remain silent= to aquiescense and U win

[sfiorare]

statutes are law, you really have to be a under-educated and inexperienced to fall for the bs in this video

[justaman6972]

@sfiorare Incorrect.Statutes are legislative acts given the force of law by the consent of the governed. So do not consent and these do not apply to you!

[sfiorare]

@justaman6972 - they do apply to you

just ask ws

'Wesley Snipes begins serving jail sentence for tax evasion'

'Blade' actor has three-year sentence at Pennsylvania jail

source: The Vancouver Sun 12/9/2010

[justaman6972]

@sfiorare Incorrect,they do not apply to me. Mr.Snipes had no affidavit of truth on file declaring his sovereign status.I would speculate here and say,he hired an attorney,which made him a(WARD/CHILD) of the court of non-record. I'll bet he appeared generally and not as a special visitation. As sovereign I am not subject to the law. I am the source of the law. See Yick Wo v. Hopkins US 118.356,370. You have much to learn.Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance,read more....

[sfiorare]

@justaman6972 - i investigated the bs you're talking about, many decades ago

the case you mention has nothing to do with absolving you from obeying tax laws

you really have to be a nut case or an idiot to believe that filing an affidavit will release you from your legal obligations

[justaman6972]

@sfiorare Hey here's an idea,rather than use a red herring and pitiful ad hominem personal attacks,why don't you post your evidence to the contrary if you have it. I'm sure all of those following this thread would be interested in the information. If you have no evidence then shut your piehole. The research you did decades ago have nothing to do with current law as the law changes al the time. Yick Wo v. Hopkins has never been overturned ,or set aside and you know zero about law clearly.

[sfiorare]

@justaman6972 - wo v hopkins is about racial discrimination and the 'equal protection clause' of the 14th amendment; it has nothing to do with releasing you from your legal obligations

statutory law is law, codified law is law; you really do have to be an idiot or a nut to fall for the bs in this video

[justaman6972]

@sfiorare Yeah I know what the case is about. You have clearly not read the opinion of Chief Justice Matthews concerning this case. Maybe you should do that and learn something, as it deals with sovereignty and THE PEOPLE being the source of the law and NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW. You fail in continuing to miss the objective of the SCOTUS in this case and failing again by the juvenile name calling. Produce evidence to the contrary,or zip it Statutes are not law,they are acts of the legislature.

[brettdusek]

@justaman6972 I have befriended a retired Judge recently, which informed me that if a defendant claims to be a beneficiary to a trust and assigns the Judge as the trustee, it will beat every civil and any criminal action (not falling under common law) and that the defendant can even then motion to be awarded a monetary value for redemption.

BTW, sfiorare likes the ideas of socialistic/fascist law. I'm more interested in what law professors and judges have educated me on, than his opinions.

[justaman6972]

@brettdusek I have heard the same thing ,by appointing the judge as the trustee and you being the clearly intended beneficiary of the trust you should win ,as you are claiming that you are one of the People of the trust and the trust is the Preamble to the Constitution. Yes sfiorare's vouche is chock full of merde.

[brettdusek]

@sfiorare Hmm, well you can believe what you want. I have on record these methods working. They tried to push contempt of court, but released me 10 minutes after and on record stated they had no jurisdiction. I then proceeded to order my local sheriff to arrest the judge for denying her oath on record. All actions against me were dropped, I was escorted out of the court and told never to come back.

This established Ratio Decidendi under Stare Decisis. Look up the words, lazy.

[justaman6972]

@brettdusek ha ha ha ,good one B! He doesn't owna latin dictionary much less have access to a Bovier's or Blacks words and phrases. Lexus Nexus nope not that either , or West lol... just horrible opinions lol....

[sfiorare]

@brettdusek - show me the evidence of your court action

[brettdusek]

@sfiorare I got one for you. I'll conditionally agree to show you my evidence if you can show me the evidence that we aren't sovereign and own these rights. In fact, I'll even fax you the letter that is from the court which states that they have no jurisdiction.

Other than that, I'm not concerned enough about you to take time for you. I've had a hard enough time getting you to be open-minded to accept reality. Our country was based off of these principles, longer than the present day system.

[sfiorare]

@brettdusek - court records are public, just identify the case number, date and other identifying information relating to the case