The courtroom, more than just a game? I think NOT.

[w4nn13]

Courts, Jurisdiction and Pomp n Circumstance
Article by Guy Euden



For those of you facing court sometime soon you had best take note of this:

This is going to be part empowerment and part technical, but it is more empowerment than anything else!

KNOW WHO AND WHAT YOU ARE:
You are one down from God. Understand that there is God, then there is you. Does commerce, corporations or statutes come between you and god? No. So, there are no rules that can govern you in your "Man" capacity.

Believe me they know this, and it scares them silly! Why do you think it is that they go through all of the pompous acting, black robes (costumes) and have their benches so much higher than you? Its so they can create the illusion of being superior!! I'll tell you now, they are nothing of the sort and they know it, that is why we have had judges leave court in terrible fits of temper!!

YOU ARE THE COURT! Why? Because in your "man" capacity you reign supreme below only God himself, understand? How is it possible for a corporation to have jurisdiction over something that is 2nd only to God?

So you see belief in your rightful place is the beginning and in fact, if you know how to behave, the end of their jurisdiction!

Ok, a little role play here:
You go into the courthouse to assist the court in dealing with a liability that has been attached to your "strawman fiction".
You have hurdles to get over, bluffs from the court to get past and then a few points to make!! Bamm!

You enter the courthouse, and are met by an usher/register bearer, he/she asks for your name, how do you answer?
"A name is a legal title". You give them this & you're cooked before you begin! Try "hello I am called Guy I am an interested 3rd party and I am here about that matter"

Now she may say I need your name, you can't go in without giving me your name! Bluff! You must alter your voice and attitude become fervent in your assertion, "I am called Guy and I am an interested 3rd party and I am here about that matter now tell the judge I am here!!" (bold for emphasis) try not to be too angry looking, trust me they probably don't know, and are just doing their jobs. Ignorance is the corporations best weapon, so many people I have met have given up because the fight through the stupidity is so hard, it's like treading water that's really treacle!

Once they have disappeared to tell the judge an angry fellow has come in and he won't give me his name, you can expect more theatrics; perhaps a barrister will come and pay you a visit and try the same old tricks to try to get you to contract.

Answer no straight questions, especially DO NOT give your "persons" name, separate the two, you're a "man" remember that!

Once you have got passed that you may be asked to attend the judge's chambers, if so you can go, don't answer to the name of your person, you are the man, if they call a name, respond with "I'm sorry did you call Guy Euden? If you did I am an interested 3rd party and I am here about that matter!"

As you go through and the judge swings his doors open and says "come in come in" invitingly! You must not cross the threshold/doorframe, you must before stepping through, state, "I will enter sir if I may do so with all of my unalienable rights reserved?" well he can't say no can he? If he chooses not to acknowledge what you have just said and tries to brush past the statement, you must repeat and get his agreement, no agreement, no entry!!

Once that is passed you might be offered a seat, I would say actually "sir I will stand and will do so with all of my unalienable rights reserved!"

Ok so far so good, no jurisdiction given away here YET!

Ask him if your attendance in his chambers is going to be recorded "so that a no show isn't pulled on you"

Ok once this is all done and you have established you're not going to be prey to his jurisdiction you can hammer out your desire to assist and help the court settle and close this account etc etc.... don't answer questions with answers, answer them with questions and get what you want done across.

THE COURT ROOM
The courtroom is no different from chambers, when you enter you do not answer to the called name, you state clearly that "you are here about that matter"

Enter the courtroom reserving all of your unalienable rights.

When you hear the "ALL RISE" .......... STAY SEATED, remember your status GOD>YOU>CORPORATION would that Judge rise for you? I doubt it! You do not get up for him at all! You get up when you want to get up.

If the clerk rushes over and says you must stand or you must leave ask on whose authority are you asking me to leave?
After all this is YOUR COURT ROOM NOW!! You are the highest authority in that court, A living MAN 2nd only to God!

Now the old "please state your name and address for the court" twoddle!!! you do NOT do this, you can ask "if I gave you this information would I be entering into contract with you?" if he states no he'd be lying, if he states yes you are giving him nothing, so answer "then sir I decline your offer to contract, and you may call me Guy. I am here to assist this court in settlement and closure of this account" oooooohhh he won't like that!!

If you don't answer that way you could try, "I have no name sir, names are for corporations, you may address me as Guy"
Ohh just look into his seething eyes!! This alone is worth going for!

Remember your mantra! "YOU ARE AN INTERESTED 3rd PARTY HERE TO ASSIST THE COURT IN SETTLEMENT AND CLOSURE OF THIS ACCOUNT"
I'll break this down a little for you, I am the only contributing beneficiary to the "GUY EUDEN" trust "NI number" so I am the only interested party capable of dealing with matters pertaining to the said trust!

THE OATH yes the judge has an oath of office, you see there are two types of judges:
Levitical and Melchesidec
The levitical goes back to a time when a levitical priest went about his business and settled disputes, he used his "judgement" he then took a payment for solving the dispute. There are no rules here, he does whatever he feels he wants to, hence why you need that levitical judge to hold his tongue
You do this by asking him: "for and on the record sir, do you have an oath of office?", he might answer "well I think I may have wrote something on a piece of paper... somewhere?" the usual garbage you would expect from a corporate judge or trustee of the Corporate Court, who just wants to get paid!
So you then ask him: is your oath in this courtroom today? He can answer many ways, but 99% of the time it isn't, so you reiterate: "but you do have an oath of office?" whatever he comes back with, hold your hand high in the air and state loudly and clearly "FOR AND ON THE RECORD, THE COURT TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE OF JUDGE *******'s OATH OF OFFICE!"
Then turn to the judge and make sure that has been recorded, if he declines to do it then you must ask him to leave the court, fire him!, as he is nothing more than a corporate lackie!! And is not worthy to be sitting there in any kind of a judgment position! If it has been put on the record as so ordered by yourself, then, the judge is now recognised as a melchesidec judge and cannot practice law from the bench. He is now just an umpire, and must remain silent most of the time, now you only have to deal with the plaintiff.

Oh if he tries to preach law from the bench, shout out "Sir, you are on your oath!!!" flagrant breaches of this rule and you can issue a bond, or a lien against him.
Ok now things may take a bit of a dive, they will be wanting to contract and have been known not to want to play if they can't get you into contract, even screaming, blowing gaskets etc... ha ha, I tell you can have some dam fun with this!! "sir are you ok?, would you like me to call for help? Are you suffering an attack?, would you like a 10 minute recess to compose yourself? I am happy to grant one! HAHAHA oh God please it's just too much fun!! Just remember its all acting!!

You may be screamed at: blah blah blah!!! "or you will be held in contempt of court" ok... " what contempt would that be sir? If it's criminal, please bring forth the injured party as I wish to make recompense!! Or is it civil? If so please show me the contract of performance I have agreed to?" or just "please bring forth the contract"

During however long you are in there the judge will try to catch you in the jurisdiction trap, calling you: sir, mr, miss, mrs blah blah, we used to have to keep fighting that with something like "sir you keep referring to me as a corporation, do I look like a corporation to you?" look genuinely distressed at this, your honour is at stake here!

This would usually get really boring and make the court appearance a real bore, now it's easier, use this:
"Sir you keep referring to me as a corporation, I am however just a man, if it assists you though I will grant you that courtesy" this nullifies his whole name calling shooting match, watch for fireworks, some friends of mine had a high court of chancery judge leave the court due to this, he was in a frightful rage ha ha ha well done "S" and "L"

YOU DO NOT GET IN THE DOCK (DOCKS ARE FOR SHIPS) ADMIRALTY.... GET IT?
YOU DO NOT DO ANYTHING ASKED OF YOU
YOU DO NOT HAVE A NAME
YOU WANT WATER LIKE THE REST OF THEM!
YOUR SEAT BETTER BE AS GOOD ASWELL!
YOU DO NOT STAND WHEN ALL RISE IS SHOUTED
YOU ARE THE ULTIMATE PRESENCE IN THAT COURT, YOU ARE THE ONLY NON FICTICIOUS CREATION THERE
AND YOU ARE SECOND ONLY TO GOD HIMSELF!

Really by now you should have an idea, the other information you need to know is court documents and procedures, bonds, bonded promissory notes, liens etc

None of this is essential, I did stress at the beginning, it is more a state of mind, KNOW WHO YOU ARE, isn't that right "Mirthful Merryweather"

You have the power, feel it, know it, BECOME IT,

 

[David Phineas]

This type of technique is normally referred to as "Don't claim the Name" or something similar. I have a link to hours, probably 30 or 40+, of audio discussion regarding this topic. If you do it correctly, it works. If you don't do it correctly, you are in even bigger trouble IMHO.

Let me know if anyone is interested.

 

[G-Dog]

I had always thought I was just a pawn (as a defendant) in the legal system where lawyers get to play and see who is smarter between each other. In the end they both get paid and do not have any serious consequences.

 

[David Phineas]

All lawyers are officers of the court, and their oath and allegiance is TO THE COURT. If they don't play by the rules, the rules that the court wants them to use, then they can be disbarred and have to find another line of work. This is the first point of the scam. They really DON'T care about you, they need to toe the line or they won't have a job.

 

[G-Dog]

When I have consulted lawyers the first thing they do is scare the shit out of me. Part of the sales technique. Second they tell you that how you had behaved had made the case harder for them to win, regardless of what you did. If you get a DUI and do not take a Breath test they tell you that you should have and if you did take a breath test they tell you shouldn't have. I consider them scum of the earth. I have even had lawyers get me out of a tough spot and still didn't care for them.

 

[WillyBudz]

Unfortunatley the "Straw man" defense fails more often than it works.



WillyB

 

[David Phineas]

This technique has nothing to do with the strawman defense in the usual manner. Not claiming the name is basically the process of "oh yeah? Prove it" in the court. Strawman redemption is what happens when and individual does not realize that by taking ownership over their strawman, they are accepting all the liability for that Strawman.

The government set up that corporation, and if you use your SSN, then you are the beneficiary of that. Just leave it alone and don't use it unless you want to discharge some of that debt. Fighting the government over ownership of something that they created is foolish. The reason that the strawman technique fails sometimes is because the person wants to own it, and not be responsible for it all at the same time.

It would be better to legally divorce the U.S. and just live outside their statutory law. The problem is that most people want to keep accepting the federal handouts, and when you straddle the fence, you get your nuts cut off.

 

[TorturedSoul]

Hi w4nn13,

Can you supply any court transcripts where this strategy has been successful in at least one civil, one criminal trial (state), and one criminal trial (federal)? Thanks!

 

[David Phineas]

Hi w4nn13,

Can you supply any court transcripts where this strategy has been successful in at least one civil, one criminal trial (state), and one criminal trial (federal)? Thanks!

When this technique is used, there is no transcript, the case is dropped, or dismissed. Most of the time when this technique is used, the "court" is not really a court, but a commission or administrative meeting, such as traffic court, so if there is a court reporter, the judge just has them strike it from record. Many things that our "government" calls "court" is not court like we believe it to be when we think of courts and judges. They just call the meeting "court" and the commisioner "judge" to make everybody think that they have jurisdiction.

I personally have used this to get out of various traffic "offenses", the last ones being unlicensed and no registration and no insurance. The judge finally got frustrated and dismissed everything. I still have no license, no insurance, and no registration. The thing about his technique is it still leaves everything up in the air, so the man is still harassed by cops, judges, etc. It is better to just do the proper paperwork and send it to them so they know to leave you alone, that way you are not going to court all the time and not dealing with constant harassment.

My friend has used this to defeat charges filed by a US Attorney pursuing tax charges against him, although he uses a slightly different version of this, not really a "freeman" technique.

This technique is valid, but the people that use it misunderstand why it works I think. The real issue is that all these laws are contract/special/private law that are unlawfully applied to everyone. I understand the frustration, but there is no need for a show of force or any kind of animosity.

There are recordings online from different court cases that you can listen to, but regarding your inquiry, finding court transcripts are almost impossible, not because they don't exist, but because they are dismissed, or the court orders them to be unpublished, just like all the income tax cases like Conklin were the government looses, and they hide it so you can't read it without first knowing about it, and filing the proper paperwork forcing the government to give you a copy. Even then the gov acts like they don't know what you are talking about when you demand it.

You have to threaten to sue to get it out of them.

 

[TorturedSoul]

So no evidence (no pun intended) that such a thing would be of use to people arrested and tried for cannabis-related "offenses," then? Nothing that has found its way into PACER?

 

[David Phineas]

There are no transcripts because if the technique works, there is no court record because "court" did not happen, the person cut it off before the "court" could establish jurisdiction and enter into proceedings that would be recorded.

Couple of things...

There is no guarantee of anything working in any court of law, even if it has worked in the past. Corrupt, ignorant, or bias judges can basically do anything they want, and the entity that reviews them if there is any question of impropriety is a panel of other lawyers.

Our government is riddled with this "fox guarding the chicken house" type of structure. What drug enforcement person is going to bite the hand that feeds him? His very existence is based on continuing the drug war, and if it goes away, he has to go get a living from actually producing instead of taking from public. There jobs are not public service because they TAKE from public resources. What traffic court judge is going to admit that he is not a judge, not a court, and that nobody needs a drivers license to move about the ways by whatever means they deem necessary? He would be out of a job.

There are cases where judges just refuse to rule on a case for YEARS, the conklin case is that type of case. The judge just refused to rule for over 5 years and even told him that he did not want to rule because it would set a precedent for exposing the income tax for what it really is, a great big bluff/scam. Or in the C. Hansen case in california where the judge said he was issuing a ruling, and then issued an opinion instead, and in essence gave no ruling.

Anyway, you say evidence, and then the question becomes "what do you mean by evidence?" Court transcripts that you can use for defending marijuana use? The federal courts won't even allow "evidence" that cannabis is medically beneficial, so 400 clinical studies that are "evidence" can't be used as "evidence" depending on where you want to use them. So, if you are looking for some kind of transcript or ruling or golden nugget that you can use to make an officer or agent just leave you alone when they see your stash or find your cannabis crop garden, that is not going to happen right now.

I can prove without doubt that Title 21 does not apply to me, but that does not mean that just SAYING it to a DEA agent is going to make him go away. I have challenged jurisdiction of a court before, and had to show the judge that according to the rules of his own court, he had to stop immediately and move to an evidence hearing to determine if there in fact was jurisdiction of that court over me. He ignored his own rules and it went on and on for weeks and months before one of his "upline/mentors/monitors" had to call him off. The problem is that they need to keep the illusion up, so in dealing with these people, whether it is police, law enforcement, DEA, judges, your own attorneys, you have to give them an out so they can save face and keep up the appearance that they are in control.

I had another friend that was in a court battle for over two years in Florida, and the last time that he went to court the judge had TWO orders already signed for him to go to the looney bin for 5 years and he walked because they couldn't get him to admit that he was the man representing the name on the orders. It went round and round for months after that before a higher up stepped in and made it go away. The problem is that you have to give them something to use as a reason for taking an action for or against you.

The best method that I have seen for cutting this off before it gets too far, whether it is cannabis freedom or tax freedom or gun control, is to read and understand the law and its jurisdiction so that you can file your affadavits with the Federal Sec. of State and the Sec of State where you live detailing your domicile and tax status, demand for rebuttal and effectiveness of non-response that leaves them admitting that you are correct, and agreeing to stand in your place if anyone tries to arrest you or charge you with any crime. I can pm you with an example of this for withdrawing from Social Security if you want to see what something like this looks like.

I am here to learn more about the cannabis laws than I do now in order to finish out my legal paperwork to start my affidavit process. It is not hard, just a bunch of work. The government says their little laws (codes actually) are rebutable in court, so I am just working toward that. The OP is just one method that people are using to rebut this. I just prefer to go about it differently, and start at the top instead of at the bottom.

 

[TorturedSoul]

There are no transcripts because if the technique works, there is no court record because "court" did not happen, the person cut it off before the "court" could establish jurisdiction and enter into proceedings that would be recorded.

Anyway, you say evidence, and then the question becomes "what do you mean by evidence?" Court transcripts that you can use for defending marijuana use? The federal courts won't even allow "evidence" that cannabis is medically beneficial, so 400 clinical studies that are "evidence" can't be used as "evidence" depending on where you want to use them. So, if you are looking for some kind of transcript or ruling or golden nugget that you can use to make an officer or agent just leave you alone when they see your stash or find your cannabis crop garden, that is not going to happen right now.

I can prove without doubt that Title 21 does not apply to me, but that does not mean that just SAYING it to a DEA agent is going to make him go away. I have challenged jurisdiction of a court before, and had to show the judge that according to the rules of his own court, he had to stop immediately and move to an evidence hearing to determine if there in fact was jurisdiction of that court over me. He ignored his own rules and it went on and on for weeks and months before one of his "upline/mentors/monitors" had to call him off. The problem is that they need to keep the illusion up, so in dealing with these people, whether it is police, law enforcement, DEA, judges, your own attorneys, you have to give them an out so they can save face and keep up the appearance that they are in control.

The best method that I have seen for cutting this off before it gets too far, whether it is cannabis freedom or tax freedom or gun control, is to read and understand the law and its jurisdiction so that you can file your affadavits with the Federal Sec. of State and the Sec of State where you live detailing your domicile and tax status, demand for rebuttal and effectiveness of non-response that leaves them admitting that you are correct, and agreeing to stand in your place if anyone tries to arrest you or charge you with any crime. I can pm you with an example of this for withdrawing from Social Security if you want to see what something like this looks like.

Ok, perhaps I was being too specific by my use of the term "transcripts." Pretty much anything that would have been filed and which is retrievable via a PACER search would be fine - transcripts would be most interesting, but any motions/discoveries/documentation filed by either the prosecution or defense in a criminal trial situation or by the plaintiff or defense in a civil one would do. In lieu of the actual documentation, document/case/court numbers of a specific document or set of documents would also do (I could take it from there, most likely).

Anything other than and more substantial than posts on a web-forum (no offense intended), blog, or personal website, basically. It's not that I am questioning you, specifically, in this - I question EVERYTHING.

You may PM me information if you like, but if it can be potentially used either directly or as a basis for the framework of a defense by any of our many brothers and sisters in the fight, I would not consider it to be off-topic in any substantial way and therefore would think that it would be acceptable to post right here in this thread (although I am not a member of this site's staff and therefore am only following my own best judgment). Besides, there are bound to be far more intelligent people here than I who might find the information interesting, useful, or both.

Thanks.

 

[David Phineas]

I question EVERYTHING.

Nice, so do I and we are probably kindred spirits in that regard.

if it can be potentially used either directly or as a basis for the framework of a defense by any of our many brothers and sisters in the fight, I would not consider it to be off-topic in any substantial way and therefore would think that it would be acceptable to post right here in this thread (although I am not a member of this site's staff and therefore am only following my own best judgment). Besides, there are bound to be far more intelligent people here than I who might find the information interesting, useful, or both.

NO problem, I understand the point that you are making. There is some small nuggets that everyone here may know or not know about, from this site regarding the CSA, and more specifically challenges to Federal jurisdiction that are very compelling, especially when the judges refuse to rule on the motion. If you are a prove it kind of person, which I am, then this should interest you and you should be able to discern the validity of this defense and motion.

link to common sense law webpage

The other items regarding defense are similar to the above website, but deal mainly with the CSA defining its own jurisdiction as being NOT in any of the 50 states of the Union.

It is much harder defending against state code than federal, but even state code has some major loopholes that are not too hard to find. The problem is that just about everybody takes a benefit from state or federal governments, and that is the real key for them establishing jurisdiction over a man or woman.

 

[MedicalNeed]

TS this is a subject where good info somehow just drops off the web? How may that be? I can only guess.

It is really only a nasty game of parliamentary procedure played on a "Court" just like all the other GAMES, refusal to submit to maritime law, and standing within common law only.

Those in the know rarely spoon feed thru the procedure to teach others as they are all ready on a self mission.


Here is a short vid to get you going.
YouTube - Meet Your Strawman!

 

[WillyBudz]

I do not know where some of you get your info, I get mine from actual case law and case law shows this "Straw Man" and other defenses used along these lines almost NEVER work. When they do work it is usually not because of the defense used but because the prosecution made some stupid procedural mistakes. I have followed many issues since the 1970's and this usually does nothing but draw more attention to yourself.

BTW, I am not one down from God, There would have to actually be a "God" in the christian sense for me to be number 2.... don't know about you but I am number ONE.

These United States were NOT founded by Christians but Dietists...........


WillyB

 

[WillyBudz]

When this technique is used, there is no transcript, the case is dropped, or dismissed. Most of the time when this technique is used, the "court" is not really a court, but a commission or administrative meeting, such as traffic court, so if there is a court reporter, the judge just has them strike it from record. Many things that our "government" calls "court" is not court like we believe it to be when we think of courts and judges. They just call the meeting "court" and the commisioner "judge" to make everybody think that they have jurisdiction.

I personally have used this to get out of various traffic "offenses", the last ones being unlicensed and no registration and no insurance. The judge finally got frustrated and dismissed everything. I still have no license, no insurance, and no registration. The thing about his technique is it still leaves everything up in the air, so the man is still harassed by cops, judges, etc. It is better to just do the proper paperwork and send it to them so they know to leave you alone, that way you are not going to court all the time and not dealing with constant harassment.

My friend has used this to defeat charges filed by a US Attorney pursuing tax charges against him, although he uses a slightly different version of this, not really a "freeman" technique.

This technique is valid, but the people that use it misunderstand why it works I think. The real issue is that all these laws are contract/special/private law that are unlawfully applied to everyone. I understand the frustration, but there is no need for a show of force or any kind of animosity.

There are recordings online from different court cases that you can listen to, but regarding your inquiry, finding court transcripts are almost impossible, not because they don't exist, but because they are dismissed, or the court orders them to be unpublished, just like all the income tax cases like Conklin were the government looses, and they hide it so you can't read it without first knowing about it, and filing the proper paperwork forcing the government to give you a copy. Even then the gov acts like they don't know what you are talking about when you demand it.

You have to threaten to sue to get it out of them.

Dismissed or not you can go to your County Clerk and get a transcript.. PERIOD. Dropped and dismissed cases also have transcripts. The reason they cannot be posted is there are very very few to post that show a win for the Straw Man defense. Esp. one that shows the defense won and the prosecution did not lose... if you know what I mean.

What it comes down to in the Straw Man is the attempt to use loopholes both real and imaginary to get out of usually illegal activities or bills you do not wish to pay. Whether or not these illegal activities are justified or not is another story.

Don't you think something that actually worked most of the time would be more than an underground movement? A movement that has been stuck in the same place for 40 plus years....... and I have been following for 30.

I agree with alot of the issues that are brought up but, "Straw Man" ...... "willyb VS WILLYB" or "WillyB representing WILLYB" make me laugh.

If you do not mind extra special government attention and don't mind only a 1% or less chance to win ... go for it....

It is soooooooo much easier just to live off the grid and I do not mean just disconnecting from utilities.

For 30 years I have followed this and actually rooted for it...... praying for somebody to get it right... and right most of the time........ I am still watching.......... nothing to see here... move along please.
Anyone can get lucky, when there is proof that this works on a VERY consistant basis I may change my opinion of it.


WillyB