paperwork, democratism, communism, common law, country, countries, affidavits, uniform commercial code, oaths, jurisdiction, constitution, bill of rights, blacks law dict, legality, inalienable/unalienable, freeman, human, civil, criminal, sovereign, acts, statutes, national, international treaties, legislation, etc, r they not all hearsay, fictitious & ambiguous?, isn't it just a meeting of the minds?.type in imbatman57 in youtube & talkshoe.com.
So Schaeffer, how'd this court case ever end up? Woops, I'm sorry, you can't read this because you're detained awaiting trial for conspiring to kill judges and State Troopers. Great job ruining your life, champ.
Going to THEIR courts is big wasting of time!!! and everything else. You can see, THEY-JUDGES-GANGS-PSYCHOPATHS are NOT listening your noble speech. They are PSYCHOPATHS, and from JUDGES and etc PSYCHOPATHS you can expect only more crime, murder, theft... They are criminals, captains of murderers, and crime is what they do best. But not for too long, their time is running out and they will try to go underground. They can NOT, The Creator is watching!
"The STATE" will do everything in their power to find you guilty... even if you are not... WHO.. is the 'STATE'?I It is a contract... it only exists by agreement. If I dont agree, the STATE does not exist. I do not consent... I do not agree, and therefore you have NO AUTHORITY..... period.. People live in bondage because they bind themselves to an agreement. PROVE the STATE exists., and that it has any bearing on myself whatsoever.. WITHOUT MY AGREEMENT... The STATE is Peter Pan
Why does he let the Judge called him Mr. Cox this is giving her jurisdiction in truth, never accept a nobility title or any judge calling you by your surname. You are John or John of the family name Smith.
@candiceevans1 Greetings Candice. I thank you for your question. My position is one taken by the thinker Locke. You can read more if you like by searching on wikipedia for "social contract". However please know that I do not confer upon my govt any powers that I do not have and object to actions it may take in doing so. Schafer discusses this also in an interview with Kreiger.
As part of the social contract, to relieve us of the burdens of nature, we enter into agrement with governments and other fictional entities, forfeiting our rights, to provide for us in our stead.
@EDOGZ818 All crimes are offences against the State. Rape is a socially undesirable thing, so parliament legislates against it, making it an offence. In terms of what is and isn't a crime there's no difference between actions that affect individuals and actions that, as you say, affect an 'entity'. How do 'victimless crimes' like attempted murder and conspiracy to commit a terrorist act fit into your idea of what crime is?
Depriving one of their God given or constitutional rights is a crime. Rape falls into a crime against a person , as opposed to running a red light , when the street is empty , except for you & traffic cam.
Conspiracy?
I'd have to look at the cause & effect.
Conspiring to resist tyranny via unjust laws? IE: Slavery, Jim Crow, etc. Hard to consider a person a terrorist for wanting justice.
@bigyellowism It's simple. The courts have fraudulent jurisdiction....for ALL crimes. The modern court is incapable of actually prosecuting a de jure crime. It doesn't have jurisdiction. That's the flip side of autonomy (sovereignty) thinking. It has no inherent authority, except for the authority it CLAIMS. A rebuttal of that claim shatters the illusion of consent that is the rationale for its claim of jurisdiction.
The reason is that the courts aren't courts. They are companies.
@bigyellowism As companies, they can't force anything on anyone. It has to be by agreement. "Plea bargains" are a great example. Almost everything is "pled." I recently assisted on a traffic case (my first one) and got 3 for 3 charges dismissed, simply by asking for the statutory definition of the words "operate" and "Person," and a demand to see the "assignment" of power of attorney which the statute MGL Chap 90 Sec 3A-3D claims to be in the hands of the registrar.
@bigyellowism and pointing out that a judge entered a plea over objection through a transfer of this claimed power of attorney as outlined in the guardian statutes, and where's that assignment? And by laying claim that the officer abandoned his office by failing to show ID as required by MGL chap 41 Sec 98D, and that interrogations and attempts to gather incriminating evidence were engaged in without miranda warning, and by claiming that the state
@bigyellowism has converted right into priviledge and charged a license and issued a fee for it, which is sedition, and unonstitutional. We pointed out that the registrar's claim of valid service was outside of his staturory authority, even if he were able to produce the assignment of power of attorney (read "authority") granting that authority (lol never saw that because it doesn't exist).
Two charges were dismissed by the judge for "lack of reasonable probable cause of notification"
you oppose what Schaeffer cox says because you think he is wrong. I feel bad for those naive and ignorant enough to think so. Does he belong in Jail? sure. Is he correct? absolutely, without question. He inspires the desire to retire an empire with crossfire. Being a revolutionary isn't a crime, and if it is then it only serves to prove his points. He's no smiling in his picture in the paper cause he's crazy, he's smiling because he's right.
I count one out of fifteen reasonable comments. I have no idea what contracting you are referring to unless it is some uneducated version of a natural law theory?
It is also interesting that he claims to advocate for constitutional submission, but then claims that the court does not have the jurisdiction that is granted via the constitution. He claims that he submits only to God, but there is a pretty clear provision called the Establishment Clause that precludes any such defense.
@jahastings3 agreed, however granting the court jurisdiction under a 'corporation' with adhearence to policy, not law= BAD. The adhearence part has come to the responsibilty of the defendant(s) vs. the court. Victimless crimes are the PERFECT example of 'for profit' corporate practice via policy creation with out accountability through compartmentalizing administratively. Once something is/has been established as 'for profit', the 'blinder's' are on selectively, VERY selectively..
Scheafer sure is brave but I think he will still go down next week. If he doesn't show up then they will hunt for him in force and if the feds help good luck kid. I am on Mr. Cox side but I do not think the Freeman line of reasoning holds water. Everyone that has tried it has failed and those that pretend that the state or federal laws do not apply to them end up crushed by the enforcers of those laws.
.....A more simpler version would be......'I am a Sovereign Man flesh and blood standing in God's kingdom, do u have an oath of office, under God so help me God, now we have a binding contract,(under God).
Judge/Banker was actually very tolerant. He should have protected himself by putting her on oath.
Would you be better off not appearing at all and sending back their paperwork when they send it to you?? Once you're in the lions den, you are at the mercy of the lions! Dont go into the lions den and you're at your own mercy! Maybe??
While this is a very eloquent and no doubt very sincere moving speech it does not matter because he has already obviously contracted with them, he will be thanked then processed and have completely missed the point. These people are masters of deception and have no concerns for justice; you must play them at their own game and that is not to be contracted into their jurisdiction from the very start of the proceedings!
@robertk1968 Entirely true. As soon as you contract, you're at their mercy. Likewise, I think it was a very well-written speech, but he wasted his breath. No doubt he will learn this the hard way. My best wishes to him.
@TinQuasimodo By admitting his name in ALL CAPITOLS was himself and thereby allowing them to con him into their juristriction. He should have at the very start asked if the judge was under oath, asked to see him oath and then asking if all his common law rights will be protected, usually don't get passed the 1st bit as none of these judges want you to know that they are ACTING under maritine law (Manmade law)
@robertk1968 Gotcha. I've also seen a UK man not give jurisdiction by just not standing for the judge upon his/her entrance....then following with the oath summons.
Does this also work in the United States of America? Can they hold you in contempt if you don't even stand up?
@TinQuasimodo Not sure about the US, but a lot of freemen agree that going to court is the last resort, if you can deal with the claim before, by a counter claim, then you can confound them with their own deception. In a counter claim you accept their claim provisionally and request your enquiries to be answered before any futher action, thats where you ask the lawful questions. The US legal system does stem from the British system, however each state court procedure might differ.
Did she just flip him the finger. They are unreal, they really dont get it do they, we the people are waking up and ignoring us will not make us go away, in fact it will wake more of us up. Keep fighting as freedom needs us in this hour of greatest threat.
She shut down the prosecutor so she could squirm around the truth that there is no evidance they the private corporation called the state of /court has any lawful jurisdiction to hear any cases in law, equity, or controversey. side note Know why BAR attourneys are all listed at law. Because if they were in law they counldnt opperate in commerce. I was curious at to the original complaint against Schaeffer anyone know? Thanks...
paperwork, democratism, communism, common law, country, countries, affidavits, uniform commercial code, oaths, jurisdiction, constitution, bill of rights, blacks law dict, legality, inalienable/unalienable, freeman, human, civil, criminal, sovereign, acts, statutes, national, international treaties, legislation, etc, r they not all hearsay, fictitious & ambiguous?, isn't it just a meeting of the minds?.type in imbatman57 in youtube & talkshoe.com.
Harv7340 2 months ago
she abandoned ship.
id take charge, and dismiss the case!
only one man(human being) is present lmfao.
sizzla123 4 months ago
Heroic. Schaeffer Cox has my respect.
networkedfreedom 6 months ago
You will be grateful one day that Schaeffer Cox said this.
Don't under estimate his words. Roman Law is not equal to all men, thats why it failed.
Lets not follow suit.
wobbers99 7 months ago
talk about 'falling on deaf ears'. the court system is a joke!! FULL RESPECT TO YOU Schaeffer Cox. Power to the people and not the mafia government.
wazzzzzzzzzzza 7 months ago
So Schaeffer, how'd this court case ever end up? Woops, I'm sorry, you can't read this because you're detained awaiting trial for conspiring to kill judges and State Troopers. Great job ruining your life, champ.
youHaveNoChance 7 months ago
Going to THEIR courts is big wasting of time!!! and everything else. You can see, THEY-JUDGES-GANGS-PSYCHOPATHS are NOT listening your noble speech. They are PSYCHOPATHS, and from JUDGES and etc PSYCHOPATHS you can expect only more crime, murder, theft... They are criminals, captains of murderers, and crime is what they do best. But not for too long, their time is running out and they will try to go underground. They can NOT, The Creator is watching!
BrankoBrankov 9 months ago
"The STATE" will do everything in their power to find you guilty... even if you are not... WHO.. is the 'STATE'?I It is a contract... it only exists by agreement. If I dont agree, the STATE does not exist. I do not consent... I do not agree, and therefore you have NO AUTHORITY..... period.. People live in bondage because they bind themselves to an agreement. PROVE the STATE exists., and that it has any bearing on myself whatsoever.. WITHOUT MY AGREEMENT... The STATE is Peter Pan
DorcasLeigh 10 months ago 4
Thanks for posting this and "RIGHT ON!"
peace,love or copper
henry19702000 11 months ago
Why does he let the Judge called him Mr. Cox this is giving her jurisdiction in truth, never accept a nobility title or any judge calling you by your surname. You are John or John of the family name Smith.
anunnaki2006 11 months ago
@candiceevans1 Greetings Candice. I thank you for your question. My position is one taken by the thinker Locke. You can read more if you like by searching on wikipedia for "social contract". However please know that I do not confer upon my govt any powers that I do not have and object to actions it may take in doing so. Schafer discusses this also in an interview with Kreiger.
heyheymonkees 11 months ago
As part of the social contract, to relieve us of the burdens of nature, we enter into agrement with governments and other fictional entities, forfeiting our rights, to provide for us in our stead.
heyheymonkees 11 months ago
We shall see if war indeed breaks out.
NewAmericaNow 11 months ago
@EDOGZ818 All crimes are offences against the State. Rape is a socially undesirable thing, so parliament legislates against it, making it an offence. In terms of what is and isn't a crime there's no difference between actions that affect individuals and actions that, as you say, affect an 'entity'. How do 'victimless crimes' like attempted murder and conspiracy to commit a terrorist act fit into your idea of what crime is?
bigyellowism 11 months ago
@bigyellowism
Depriving one of their God given or constitutional rights is a crime. Rape falls into a crime against a person , as opposed to running a red light , when the street is empty , except for you & traffic cam.
Conspiracy?
I'd have to look at the cause & effect.
Conspiring to resist tyranny via unjust laws? IE: Slavery, Jim Crow, etc. Hard to consider a person a terrorist for wanting justice.
EDOGZ818 11 months ago
@bigyellowism It's simple. The courts have fraudulent jurisdiction....for ALL crimes. The modern court is incapable of actually prosecuting a de jure crime. It doesn't have jurisdiction. That's the flip side of autonomy (sovereignty) thinking. It has no inherent authority, except for the authority it CLAIMS. A rebuttal of that claim shatters the illusion of consent that is the rationale for its claim of jurisdiction.
The reason is that the courts aren't courts. They are companies.
VerifiedNews 8 months ago
@bigyellowism As companies, they can't force anything on anyone. It has to be by agreement. "Plea bargains" are a great example. Almost everything is "pled." I recently assisted on a traffic case (my first one) and got 3 for 3 charges dismissed, simply by asking for the statutory definition of the words "operate" and "Person," and a demand to see the "assignment" of power of attorney which the statute MGL Chap 90 Sec 3A-3D claims to be in the hands of the registrar.
VerifiedNews 8 months ago
@bigyellowism and pointing out that a judge entered a plea over objection through a transfer of this claimed power of attorney as outlined in the guardian statutes, and where's that assignment? And by laying claim that the officer abandoned his office by failing to show ID as required by MGL chap 41 Sec 98D, and that interrogations and attempts to gather incriminating evidence were engaged in without miranda warning, and by claiming that the state
VerifiedNews 8 months ago
@bigyellowism has converted right into priviledge and charged a license and issued a fee for it, which is sedition, and unonstitutional. We pointed out that the registrar's claim of valid service was outside of his staturory authority, even if he were able to produce the assignment of power of attorney (read "authority") granting that authority (lol never saw that because it doesn't exist).
Two charges were dismissed by the judge for "lack of reasonable probable cause of notification"
VerifiedNews 8 months ago
@bigyellowism and the prosecution declined to proceed on the third when we showed up for the trial.
That should help answer the root of your question, and more...
VerifiedNews 8 months ago
you oppose what Schaeffer cox says because you think he is wrong. I feel bad for those naive and ignorant enough to think so. Does he belong in Jail? sure. Is he correct? absolutely, without question. He inspires the desire to retire an empire with crossfire. Being a revolutionary isn't a crime, and if it is then it only serves to prove his points. He's no smiling in his picture in the paper cause he's crazy, he's smiling because he's right.
Drositor 11 months ago
1, many mis-takes(yet awesome), mr, twice, he said yeah 2nd time she said thank you. GAVE JURISDICTION.
2. OFFER WAS UM...HM.....(I CLAIM THE RIGHT TO NOT CONTRACT).
3. SHE SAYS UNTIL you are FOUND GUILTY.....
YoginJ 11 months ago
PS~ RECESS IS NOT SAME AS ADJOURNMENT, SO HE DID CATCH A LOOPHOLE HE FAILED TO UTILIZE PROPERLY...
GOOD DAY SIR :)
YoginJ 11 months ago
I count one out of fifteen reasonable comments. I have no idea what contracting you are referring to unless it is some uneducated version of a natural law theory?
It is also interesting that he claims to advocate for constitutional submission, but then claims that the court does not have the jurisdiction that is granted via the constitution. He claims that he submits only to God, but there is a pretty clear provision called the Establishment Clause that precludes any such defense.
WTF?
jahastings3 11 months ago
@jahastings3 agreed, however granting the court jurisdiction under a 'corporation' with adhearence to policy, not law= BAD. The adhearence part has come to the responsibilty of the defendant(s) vs. the court. Victimless crimes are the PERFECT example of 'for profit' corporate practice via policy creation with out accountability through compartmentalizing administratively. Once something is/has been established as 'for profit', the 'blinder's' are on selectively, VERY selectively..
0771mark 11 months ago
What an idiot
eddiedbt 11 months ago
Scheafer sure is brave but I think he will still go down next week. If he doesn't show up then they will hunt for him in force and if the feds help good luck kid. I am on Mr. Cox side but I do not think the Freeman line of reasoning holds water. Everyone that has tried it has failed and those that pretend that the state or federal laws do not apply to them end up crushed by the enforcers of those laws.
lonewolfmilitia 1 year ago
I meant schaeffer!
lonewolfmilitia 1 year ago
that judge/banker couldn't get out of there fast enough.
Blueshiftvfx 1 year ago
.....A more simpler version would be......'I am a Sovereign Man flesh and blood standing in God's kingdom, do u have an oath of office, under God so help me God, now we have a binding contract,(under God).
Judge/Banker was actually very tolerant. He should have protected himself by putting her on oath.
sovereignirish 1 year ago
Would you be better off not appearing at all and sending back their paperwork when they send it to you?? Once you're in the lions den, you are at the mercy of the lions! Dont go into the lions den and you're at your own mercy! Maybe??
antoconno 1 year ago
@antoconno No, they just come to your house!
lonewolfmilitia 1 year ago
good man schaeffer, its worldwide now
debuitleirable 1 year ago
good man schaeffer, its worldwide now
debuitleirable 1 year ago
While this is a very eloquent and no doubt very sincere moving speech it does not matter because he has already obviously contracted with them, he will be thanked then processed and have completely missed the point. These people are masters of deception and have no concerns for justice; you must play them at their own game and that is not to be contracted into their jurisdiction from the very start of the proceedings!
robertk1968 1 year ago 7
@robertk1968 Entirely true. As soon as you contract, you're at their mercy. Likewise, I think it was a very well-written speech, but he wasted his breath. No doubt he will learn this the hard way. My best wishes to him.
ArsenalReady 1 year ago
@robertk1968
I agree, but to claim that jurisdiction in such circumstances is unforgivable.
Personally, I feel that he new he would face injustice, but he still got it down on record for you and I to scrutinise and debate.
It's all good!
swiftysmithuk 11 months ago
@robertk1968 How did he contract himself into their jurisdiction?
TinQuasimodo 11 months ago
@TinQuasimodo By admitting his name in ALL CAPITOLS was himself and thereby allowing them to con him into their juristriction. He should have at the very start asked if the judge was under oath, asked to see him oath and then asking if all his common law rights will be protected, usually don't get passed the 1st bit as none of these judges want you to know that they are ACTING under maritine law (Manmade law)
robertk1968 11 months ago
@robertk1968 Gotcha. I've also seen a UK man not give jurisdiction by just not standing for the judge upon his/her entrance....then following with the oath summons.
Does this also work in the United States of America? Can they hold you in contempt if you don't even stand up?
TinQuasimodo 11 months ago
@TinQuasimodo Not sure about the US, but a lot of freemen agree that going to court is the last resort, if you can deal with the claim before, by a counter claim, then you can confound them with their own deception. In a counter claim you accept their claim provisionally and request your enquiries to be answered before any futher action, thats where you ask the lawful questions. The US legal system does stem from the British system, however each state court procedure might differ.
robertk1968 11 months ago
@robertk1968 I didn't even think of that one! Thanks a bunch!
TinQuasimodo 11 months ago
Did she just flip him the finger. They are unreal, they really dont get it do they, we the people are waking up and ignoring us will not make us go away, in fact it will wake more of us up. Keep fighting as freedom needs us in this hour of greatest threat.
eyeswideopennimrod 1 year ago
She shut down the prosecutor so she could squirm around the truth that there is no evidance they the private corporation called the state of /court has any lawful jurisdiction to hear any cases in law, equity, or controversey. side note Know why BAR attourneys are all listed at law. Because if they were in law they counldnt opperate in commerce. I was curious at to the original complaint against Schaeffer anyone know? Thanks...
deathmarch5 1 year ago
let us know what they try to do?
mrdeleted 1 year ago