Hey Bill, i recently used these techniques on court. The Judge had me stop asking questions after I questioned the prosecutor if he could identify the defendant. The Prosecutor said he didnt want to answer the question which is where i should of dismissed the case? I only had 1 day to prepare for it as I found your information late. The case was adjourned and I plan on dismissing it next time round. Thanks again Bill,
"The presence of the body corrects the flaw in the name" beautiful man... I see the jurisdiction battle going on in a court room, thats hilarious but sad because its all about the money and no justice.
Hi Bill, I like it when you say don't go to court, then you very nicely describe what to say when you do go to court, but what can you do if you get a summons and a court date is already set, how then do you nip it in the bud...thanks Bill
It is clear your language in these matters is very precise. When the judge is asked, "...are you offering US a contract?", what is the reason for using US and not ME?
To keep the natural person (man) and corporate person (fiction) separate and declare to the court you aren't standing in place of the corporate person. Us denotes two separate, yet non-identical persons.
The courts are operating under the color of law once you deny consent they start operating as their person they surrender their qualified immunity and become liable for civil and criminal charges.
A AAA+++ In Australia I was in court (Im very green) and the judge yelled at me and told me" I ask the questions here not you" especially when I showed him the local court act section 33 about how the court can not try any cases that require a devise of any kind. great video I just got busted again 100 bucks for turning my lights on after leaving the curb
There is an easier alternate method. Bill, search in your preferred search engine: "An Interview with Freeman Burt and Clint Richardson - “The Court Clerk and the Court of Record” - #159" , listen to that discussion and tell your opinion.
Hi, I asssume that your presentation applies most likely to New Zealand or Australia. Would the same apply to the United States court system? With what I know, it probably would've but I would like to hear your comment on it. Thank You, Sir. Great job.
@@opportunix I have, and as good and appealing as the theory is, there seems to be little evidence it actually works. Even if it is right (and it likely is), it will not stop them cancelling your vehicle registration and suspending your licence thereby painting a gigantic target on your back for the police to home in on. And at the end of the day, they will just continue sending fines and sending debt collectors, and when they come around with muscle to your door to take your car or repossess your home, there is scant you can do about it. That it why they took away our arms. No way to defend ourselves. Doesn't matter one bit if you are the most correct person on the issue and know the full law - THEY DON'T CARE. THEY ARE BULLIES and they are corrupt and they all suffer from a severe case of echolalia. They do not think for themselves. They are no allowed to...they just repeat what the computer says. I do not think you will find a single judge who will agree with the strawman argument. Why would they? They rely on it for their control. And any who capitulate would do so in the most covert way possible so as not to publicize it.
You holding their contracts is your consent their driver's license, social security card, birth certificate and all the other crap they push on us is your consent.
I would like to plead guilty but I have a few questions before I do. Am I entitled to a fair trial? Am I entitled to a meaningful trial? Is it a fair and meaningful trial if I don't receive responsive answers to my questions? Can I get a fair and meaningful trial if there is a conflict of interest? Who do you represent? What is a "state"? Am I presumed innocent of every element of the crime? Is jurisdiction an element? What facts do you rely on to prove that law ("YOU NEED TO") applies to me?
It seems to me, from watching this type of Vid, the consequences of making a mistake, far outweighs taking the Risk. A Virtual Russian Roulette of the courts. It seems there is no recourse to follow to redeem the situation, once 'We the People' ('Me the Person') has Faux Pas- ed.
It is a deliberate misinterpretation of the word in the context it has been used, namely the laying of a charge for an offence such as running a red light (Turner's example). The only reason to use Bouvier's 157 year-old 6th Edition is because it only contains a definition related to contract law, unlike later versions of Bouvier's and all versions of Black's Law. The legal definition of charge as "an accusation" has existed since the 15th century.
***** Why would I? It is nonsense being passed off as knowledge of the law. For example, his definition of "charge" ignores the fact that the term has meant "to accuse" and "an accusation" since the 15th Century and instead plucks a definition from a 160 year old law dictionary. Even more recent law dictionaries, including later versions of Bouvier's, provide the definition from the 15th Century.
Black's Law, 2nd Edition, 1910, includes the following as definitions for "charge" and is readily available online. "CHARGE v. to impose a burden, obligation, or lien; to create a claim against property; to claim, to demand; TO ACCUSE [emphasis mine]; to instruct a jury on matters of law." "CHARGE n. In general. An encumbrance, lien, or burden; an obligation or duty; a liability; AN ACCUSATION [emphasis mine]." Do you think that just maybe someone is making an accusation when a charge is laid?
I'm not sure of your intention when it comes beating the horse so hard. Regardless of your protests, Bill's example from Bouvier's is one interpretation of the word charge. In my up to date LexisNexis Dictionary, one definition of charge is to take control of a person or property. Another is to take a security interest over a property. There is no mention whatsoever of Accuse or an Accusation in the definition whatsoever. In fact it seems to relate more to land and mortgage and securities. Considering we are considered land, it might explain Bill's usage in the context of the meaning. There are words today where the real meaning in the legal context is obfuscated or hidden entirely. It appears the meaning of charge might be one of them
What would be wrong with going to court and before proceedings commence making a statement clearly stating something like: "We are presenting ourselves and we as the beneficiary of our estate do not wish to enter into any contract or joinders with any other person present or represented here in the court room and we do not consent to any other person or individual administering our estate on our behalf. As the sole beneficiary of my estate I hereby grant a full and perpetual pardon to the administrator for all sins the administrator has committed in the past or will commit in the future against the beneficiary, and it is my wish, will and good pleasure that all actions against the administrator cease immediately. I respectfully request that you (the judge/magistrate) do your duty and instruct the prosecutor to immediately cease prosecution." And if the judge tries to delay, reiterate they are bound to carry out their duty without delay. PLEASE SUGGEST ANY IMPROVEMENTS!!!
I wonder why Mr. Turner doesn't show the 1st and 2nd definitions of "charge" from Butterworth's New Zealand Law Dictionary? Could it be that they do not support his contention that the word "charge" has only a contract law usage?
I'm going into court as myself, I totally forgot to reply to the judges question by forgetting to ask was he trying to contract with me . They now want me checked to see if I'm mad . They sure do try everything to try to get the a man or woman to allow jurisdiction but ya gotta be strong.
@@spoongina Yes i did but there was many there and blocking my thoughts He made out he was deaf . I stumbled. I forgot this was another contract and said speak up then i was fxxxed
Thank you, you may have just saved me from a trial. Could I just bring in my birth certificate and state the distinction between the legal fiction and the flesh and blood sovereign living soul?
So Mr. Turner chose to take his definition of "charge" from Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, 1856. I wonder why? Could it be that the definition in the 6th Edition only applies to contract law while other, more recent editions include non-contract law definitions? The 8th Edition from 1914, also readily available online, includes the definition "to accuse" and other non-contract law definitions. Black's Law, starting with the 1st Edition, also includes non-contract law definitions.
@John Smith Says the person who is responding to a comment from five years ago yet can't muster anything in the way of a rebuttal beyond a pathetic attempt at an insult.
9 років тому
the term is bait and switch lol you dont eat a fish before you lure it onto your hook!
Incorrect usage of the word charge as it relates to being arrested on a charge or being charged by a cop. Bill Turner is deliberately misinterpreting the word in the context it has been used, namely the laying of a charge for an offence such as running a red light (Turner's example). The only reason to use Bouvier's 157 year-old 6th Edition is because it only contains a definition related to contract law, unlike later versions of Bouvier's and all versions of Black's Law. The legal definition of charge as "an accusation" or "to accuse" has existed since the 15th century.
Aye...Blackstone's 3rd Edition is often dragged out too. For example, it's kept hush-hush that in the 9th edition, 'person' is defined as 'a human being'. There's no point believing everything out there, yet if you do your own work, you can realise what is the truth and what is bullshit designed to make you hand over cash (the same cash a lot will tell you is worthless...worthless but they still like to have a lot of it).
wesmatron FOTLers/Sovereign Citizens are notorious for cherry picking definitions that supposedly support their contentions and ignoring the definitions that actually fit the circumstances. Video above is a case in point.
Labels are dangerous things though; grouping the confused, ill-informed and non-critical in the same group as the educated, informed and highly critical all under the convenient sobriquet 'FOTL' or 'sovereign' is a cunning method often used to rubbish a particular line of investigation. Who would ever learn the truth about the city of London, Courts, Law, Contracts, Commerce, Freedom, one's place in the world, if the whole path they had to walk had been shit upon by dissenters and obfuscators, many of whom get accused of being shills or agents when, in reality (and far more worrying) is that they are just ordinary people; scared of ultimate self-responsibility? Like children, desiring someone to clean up after them, look after them, and protect them from the realities of the world.
The likes of Bill Turner, Dean Clifford, Rob Menard, David Lindsay et al are not telling the truth. If you use the arguments that these people espouse in court, you will lose if that is all you have. If you happen to be very lucky, you may run into a judge who, assuming there is a legitimate defence, will point out the argument that you should have used after pointing out all the problems in your defence and rule in your favour based on that. A good example of this is R. v. Duncan, 2013 ONCJ 160 - canlii.ca/en/on/oncj/doc/2013/2013oncj160/2013oncj160.html
Charge (n) In general. An incumbrance, lien, or burden; an obligation or duty; a liability; an accusation (Black's Law Dictionary) Commission (n) When one undertakes, **without reward**, to do something for another in respect to a thing bailed Videos like this are proof that a little knowledge is dangerous. Selective reading and ignorance takes people in directions that logic never goes.
I've never heard of of marry's in NZ British Prisons only Maori, British, and Pacific and other There not our prisons, they belong to the British squatting in NZ
Obviously if you are arrested for a crime, you cannot recover anything for your lost time, that would negate the entire idea of punishing criminals. There is no agreement, so there cannot be a contract.
hey Bill Turner, i watched many videos of that sort (freeman etc).. all i wanna know is.. did you try this yourself or do you hve any proof that this actually works ? or is the judge just gonna say stop playing games wit me and tell the bailiff to arrest you anyway ? so does this work and is it proven. if not what else wil work ?
Hi folks, couldn't one use the argument that the Police prosecutor is an agent therefore demand that you want to be faced by your accuser,,The NZ Police Force person or The NZ Govn?
My friend what I have come to learn is that ALL law is contract law and requires your consent, and is voluntary. I recently participated in Stanford University Forum, where the overwhelming consensus about Law today, is that since Law began incorporating all of its various entities, that this stripped them of power, and put all areas of Law in the hot seat, and that the vast majority of laws if placed under a microscope, would have no substance. The key for now is to stay out of their courts. The fact that this fiat industry was literally berthed in fraud, should speak volumes. For defense of my argument I reference the Clearfield doctrine
WHAT FACTS OR EVIDENCE DO YOU (cop/prosecutor/judge) RELY ON TO PROVE THAT LAW APPLIES TO ME?" COP:opinion PROSECUTOR:opinion JUDGE:opinion... OBJECTION! NON RESPONSIVE! start over. IS THERE EVIDENCE THAT LAW APPLIES TO ME? y/n WHAT IS THAT EVIDENCE, ARE YOU WITHHOLDING IT FROM ME? start over. More @ marcstevens (dot) net
Obviously it does concern you, by living where you do you are under the authority of the law of that jurisdiction. Yes, consent of the legislature,your representatives, make the law. Not your individual consent, THAT would be the 51% majority rule.
Try again. If you are arrested, you cannot charge the state by the hour for them holding you. There is no contract, for there to be a valid contract, both sides have to agree and there has to be something of value given in consideration.
Actually if you are in wrongfully in custody you get payed out as proven by a few cases stands to prove that yes every minute hour day month year in custody is payed out or payed to
Bill, can you be contacted on Facebook? Also, when you say the judge only has three tries to contract with you, what happens after that? When you ask for full disclosure, what do we expect will be said?
This guy is on to it and has been for years. You need to understand WHAT THEIR WORDS MEAN... eg the 1999 interpretation Act. If the govt just rocked up and said we're screwing you in plain English what do you think would happen? The remedy IS THERE but they have no legal obligation to tell you what it is. It's up to you to work it out.
Passengers are fee paying, was your journey for commerce ? If yes your entitled to be ticketed. Or if you were carrying a guest and it was non commercial then dont ignore the contract and write a letter to deal.with it
It's called "Law" and it's under the authority of the Constitution, which the People create. Everyone is equal, I can arrest you for an offense, you could arrest me. The law has the power the we as the People give it, if you don't agree you can try to change it, but your agreement is not needed for the law to have authority over you.
Law is purely a interpretation of words and New Zealand does not have a written constitution as proven by a mix of laws and the mix ethnicity on our whenua
You choose where you live. Every country is de jure. I don't need to show any proof of authority. Yes, you consent to your representatives by living where you do. They represent the geographic area you choose to live in, QED they are your representatives.
So where is the remedy for those who have actual crimes comitted against them? What do you propose a community should do about the rampant corruption which has now permeated their parliaments, executive and judiciary? Shouldn't you be advocating for the community restoring justice and equity back into their lives by proper application of common law trial by jury? N.B. procedures, not "proceEdures", as in your title.
Let the record show: no proof of claim has been given. Looks like you have lost, you have not provided any proof of the original claim. You cannot provide a single example to support your claim.
I salute you good man! Thank you for this wonderful presentation. Stephen in Alberta.
The name is very very important. you never get past the name. once the name is established jurisdiction is established
just by turning up at their court building you have accepted their jurisdiction
Hey Bill,
i recently used these techniques on court. The Judge had me stop asking questions after I questioned the prosecutor if he could identify the defendant. The Prosecutor said he didnt want to answer the question which is where i should of dismissed the case?
I only had 1 day to prepare for it as I found your information late.
The case was adjourned and I plan on dismissing it next time round.
Thanks again Bill,
How did you dismissing the caae work out?
@@Colgate64 he hasn't answered, assumed that it didn't go as expected
@@MinisterRedPill Stop Assuming. You are making an "ass" of yourself. Bill teaches that c:
It is up to the judge or magistrate to dismiss a case and not you !!
"The presence of the body corrects the flaw in the name" beautiful man... I see the jurisdiction battle going on in a court room, thats hilarious but sad because its all about the money and no justice.
i love how clearly you present everything. you have helped me so much thank you! we will get em! love from Australia
May our True God bless you Bill; Turner
Hi Bill, I like it when you say don't go to court, then you very nicely describe what to say when you do go to court, but what can you do if you get a summons and a court date is already set, how then do you nip it in the bud...thanks Bill
Brilliant presentation:Bill. Thanks.
It is clear your language in these matters is very precise. When the judge is asked, "...are you offering US a contract?", what is the reason for using US and not ME?
To keep the natural person (man) and corporate person (fiction) separate and declare to the court you aren't standing in place of the corporate person. Us denotes two separate, yet non-identical persons.
The courts are operating under the color of law once you deny consent they start operating as their person they surrender their qualified immunity and become liable for civil and criminal charges.
best comment so far.
A
AAA+++ In Australia I was in court (Im very green) and the judge yelled at me and told me" I ask the questions here not you" especially when I showed him the local court act section 33 about how the court can not try any cases that require a devise of any kind. great video I just got busted again 100 bucks for turning my lights on after leaving the curb
Priceless information. Really clearly explained.
There is an easier alternate method. Bill, search in your preferred search engine: "An Interview with Freeman Burt and Clint Richardson - “The Court Clerk and the Court of Record” - #159" , listen to that discussion and tell your opinion.
in fact yelling is the sign that they lost control.. its actually a good sign....
hi Bill, thanks for all your work
Love it Rasta
Hi, I asssume that your presentation applies most likely to New Zealand or Australia. Would the same apply to the United States court system? With what I know, it probably would've but I would like to hear your comment on it. Thank You, Sir. Great job.
Can you provide the reasoning behind the statement "only corporations go to court"? I have never heard that before.
Read the strawman you will understand it better
@@opportunix I have, and as good and appealing as the theory is, there seems to be little evidence it actually works. Even if it is right (and it likely is), it will not stop them cancelling your vehicle registration and suspending your licence thereby painting a gigantic target on your back for the police to home in on. And at the end of the day, they will just continue sending fines and sending debt collectors, and when they come around with muscle to your door to take your car or repossess your home, there is scant you can do about it. That it why they took away our arms. No way to defend ourselves. Doesn't matter one bit if you are the most correct person on the issue and know the full law - THEY DON'T CARE. THEY ARE BULLIES and they are corrupt and they all suffer from a severe case of echolalia. They do not think for themselves. They are no allowed to...they just repeat what the computer says. I do not think you will find a single judge who will agree with the strawman argument. Why would they? They rely on it for their control. And any who capitulate would do so in the most covert way possible so as not to publicize it.
Google the Jackiya Ford Story on Google. The Court Officials Ignored all of her rights.
You holding their contracts is your consent their driver's license, social security card, birth certificate and all the other crap they push on us is your consent.
I would like the court to take judicial notice of this fact I am sui juris of age and independent I also have a zero-tolerance policy.
Is there any information re the paperwork to avoid having to go to court?
I have a jury trial coming up in August. Am I screwed or is there still a way I can get out of my mess? What paperwork is Bill Talking about?
Ngamihi Bill❤
I would like to plead guilty but I have a few questions before I do. Am I entitled to a fair trial? Am I entitled to a meaningful trial? Is it a fair and meaningful trial if I don't receive responsive answers to my questions? Can I get a fair and meaningful trial if there is a conflict of interest? Who do you represent? What is a "state"? Am I presumed innocent of every element of the crime? Is jurisdiction an element? What facts do you rely on to prove that law ("YOU NEED TO") applies to me?
Fantastic. Thanks very much.
excellent stuff
Thankyou for this great info.
It seems to me, from watching this type of Vid, the consequences of making a mistake, far outweighs taking the Risk. A Virtual Russian Roulette of the courts.
It seems there is no recourse to follow to redeem the situation, once 'We the People' ('Me the Person') has Faux Pas- ed.
If life is about learning and that is about being fulfilled, then my life is being fulfilled.
It is a deliberate misinterpretation of the word in the context it has been used, namely the laying of a charge for an offence such as running a red light (Turner's example).
The only reason to use Bouvier's 157 year-old 6th Edition is because it only contains a definition related to contract law, unlike later versions of Bouvier's and all versions of Black's Law.
The legal definition of charge as "an accusation" has existed since the 15th century.
Bill, what is the paperwork you need to get done in order to never go to court again?
Perhaps Mr. Turner chose this definition because the issue is in a court of commerce and all commerce is contract, at least this is my understanding.
Addressing him by way of honour would that not be contracting to him and letting him know that he has authority over us and stands above us ?
"rep·re·sent" not "re-pre-sent": Be entitled or appointed to act or speak for (someone).
Does this only apply to less serious criminal charges or traffic offences
Thanks for the heads up will check it out
Concur 100%. Nice one Bill
brilliant vid :) will this work here in england as well as usa?
***** Brilliant except for the fact that what he states in it is wrong. LOL
It won't work anywhere.
not been to court in years mate! i was asking if you read my comments :)
*****
Why would I? It is nonsense being passed off as knowledge of the law.
*****
Why would I? It is nonsense being passed off as knowledge of the law.
For example, his definition of "charge" ignores the fact that the term has meant "to accuse" and "an accusation" since the 15th Century and instead plucks a definition from a 160 year old law dictionary. Even more recent law dictionaries, including later versions of Bouvier's, provide the definition from the 15th Century.
*****
No.
Bloody Beautiful
Thanks Bill, it all makes sense.
No, but you do agree they were Statutes/Laws.
Black's Law, 2nd Edition, 1910, includes the following as definitions for "charge" and is readily available online.
"CHARGE v. to impose a burden, obligation, or lien; to create a claim against property; to claim, to demand; TO ACCUSE [emphasis mine]; to instruct a jury on matters of law."
"CHARGE n. In general. An encumbrance, lien, or burden; an obligation or duty; a liability; AN ACCUSATION [emphasis mine]."
Do you think that just maybe someone is making an accusation when a charge is laid?
I'm not sure of your intention when it comes beating the horse so hard. Regardless of your protests, Bill's example from Bouvier's is one interpretation of the word charge. In my up to date LexisNexis Dictionary, one definition of charge is to take control of a person or property. Another is to take a security interest over a property. There is no mention whatsoever of Accuse or an Accusation in the definition whatsoever. In fact it seems to relate more to land and mortgage and securities. Considering we are considered land, it might explain Bill's usage in the context of the meaning. There are words today where the real meaning in the legal context is obfuscated or hidden entirely. It appears the meaning of charge might be one of them
What would be wrong with going to court and before proceedings commence making a statement clearly stating something like: "We are presenting ourselves and we as the beneficiary of our estate do not wish to enter into any contract or joinders with any other person present or represented here in the court room and we do not consent to any other person or individual administering our estate on our behalf. As the sole beneficiary of my estate I hereby grant a full and perpetual pardon to the administrator for all sins the administrator has committed in the past or will commit in the future against the beneficiary, and it is my wish, will and good pleasure that all actions against the administrator cease immediately. I respectfully request that you (the judge/magistrate) do your duty and instruct the prosecutor to immediately cease prosecution." And if the judge tries to delay, reiterate they are bound to carry out their duty without delay. PLEASE SUGGEST ANY IMPROVEMENTS!!!
Very amazing lecture. I subscribed.
I wonder why Mr. Turner doesn't show the 1st and 2nd definitions of "charge" from Butterworth's New Zealand Law Dictionary? Could it be that they do not support his contention that the word "charge" has only a contract law usage?
Thanks for the video Bill. How would this work in child support court in the USA?
Is the Judge making offers when he orders a person to pay?
How do we get back our property such as my son if he is taken in court proceedings
I'm going into court as myself, I totally forgot to reply to the judges question by forgetting to ask was he trying to contract with me .
They now want me checked to see if I'm mad .
They sure do try everything to try to get the a man or woman to allow jurisdiction but ya gotta be strong.
How did you go Gary?
@@spoongina still not done with rhe Kangaroo court yet but i know i will be fine
Ive beome aware of more powerful things
Courtroom stuff Gary? Did you end up asking the judge if he was offering contract?
@@spoongina Yes i did but there was many there and blocking my thoughts
He made out he was deaf . I stumbled. I forgot this was another contract and said speak up then i was fxxxed
@@theone8331 how did you mess up just because he asked you to speak up?
What if someone is born overseas ?
Thank you, you may have just saved me from a trial. Could I just bring in my birth certificate and state the distinction between the legal fiction and the flesh and blood sovereign living soul?
I believe he was inferring that it is best left alone.
Anybody know what paperwork he is using or referring to ???
Show a single case where it has worked.
So Mr. Turner chose to take his definition of "charge" from Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, 1856. I wonder why? Could it be that the definition in the 6th Edition only applies to contract law while other, more recent editions include non-contract law definitions?
The 8th Edition from 1914, also readily available online, includes the definition "to accuse" and other non-contract law definitions.
Black's Law, starting with the 1st Edition, also includes non-contract law definitions.
@John Smith Says the person who is responding to a comment from five years ago yet can't muster anything in the way of a rebuttal beyond a pathetic attempt at an insult.
the term is bait and switch lol you dont eat a fish before you lure it onto your hook!
If I am not the person I think I am aka the person on the resembling birth certificate
should I answer the name on the register in school?
How do you stop it before it goes to court. Can you get previous conditions overturned?
Is Bill Turner still active on here? Last video posted was 8 years ago.
My guess is that he isnt , because all he puts forward is rubbish
When they were the population of the land, they were the authority.
You use a service, you get charged. You then need to discharge the debt.
Incorrect usage of the word charge as it relates to being arrested on a charge or being charged by a cop.
Bill Turner is deliberately misinterpreting the word in the context it has been used, namely the laying of a charge for an offence such as running a red light (Turner's example). The only reason to use Bouvier's 157 year-old 6th Edition is because it only contains a definition related to contract law, unlike later versions of Bouvier's and all versions of Black's Law. The legal definition of charge as "an accusation" or "to accuse" has existed since the 15th century.
Aye...Blackstone's 3rd Edition is often dragged out too. For example, it's kept hush-hush that in the 9th edition, 'person' is defined as 'a human being'. There's no point believing everything out there, yet if you do your own work, you can realise what is the truth and what is bullshit designed to make you hand over cash (the same cash a lot will tell you is worthless...worthless but they still like to have a lot of it).
wesmatron
FOTLers/Sovereign Citizens are notorious for cherry picking definitions that supposedly support their contentions and ignoring the definitions that actually fit the circumstances. Video above is a case in point.
Labels are dangerous things though; grouping the confused, ill-informed and non-critical in the same group as the educated, informed and highly critical all under the convenient sobriquet 'FOTL' or 'sovereign' is a cunning method often used to rubbish a particular line of investigation.
Who would ever learn the truth about the city of London, Courts, Law, Contracts, Commerce, Freedom, one's place in the world, if the whole path they had to walk had been shit upon by dissenters and obfuscators, many of whom get accused of being shills or agents when, in reality (and far more worrying) is that they are just ordinary people; scared of ultimate self-responsibility? Like children, desiring someone to clean up after them, look after them, and protect them from the realities of the world.
The likes of Bill Turner, Dean Clifford, Rob Menard, David Lindsay et al are not telling the truth.
If you use the arguments that these people espouse in court, you will lose if that is all you have. If you happen to be very lucky, you may run into a judge who, assuming there is a legitimate defence, will point out the argument that you should have used after pointing out all the problems in your defence and rule in your favour based on that.
A good example of this is R. v. Duncan, 2013 ONCJ 160 - canlii.ca/en/on/oncj/doc/2013/2013oncj160/2013oncj160.html
Charge (n) In general. An incumbrance, lien, or burden; an obligation or duty; a liability; an accusation (Black's Law Dictionary)
Commission (n) When one undertakes, **without reward**, to do something for another in respect to a thing bailed
Videos like this are proof that a little knowledge is dangerous. Selective reading and ignorance takes people in directions that logic never goes.
what do you do if they lock you up for contempt this is urgently a big issue for us right now
don't turn up then there is no contempt of court...just be nice if you do
Then listen to those cunts lol
I've never heard of of marry's in NZ British Prisons only Maori, British, and Pacific and other
There not our prisons, they belong to the British squatting in NZ
You talking about your self again Marry
If the judge threatens you with contempt for not giving your name or answering his questions ,simply ask," Can anything I say be used against me ?
I am the Witness. nuff said.
The People get their authority by being the population of the land.
Good stuff
does this apply to the courts here in america too?
Obviously if you are arrested for a crime, you cannot recover anything for your lost time, that would negate the entire idea of punishing criminals. There is no agreement, so there cannot be a contract.
You may be arrested for an alleged crime but there is no crime unless and if convicted or you plead guilty.
hey Bill Turner, i watched many videos of that sort (freeman etc).. all i wanna know is.. did you try this yourself or do you hve any proof that this actually works ? or is the judge just gonna say stop playing games wit me and tell the bailiff to arrest you anyway ? so does this work and is it proven. if not what else wil work ?
I see you have a debunker changing his anchor & following you around now Billy, you must be doing something right lol
Hi folks, couldn't one use the argument that the Police prosecutor is an agent therefore demand that you want to be faced by your accuser,,The NZ Police Force person or The NZ Govn?
My friend what I have come to learn is that ALL law is contract law and requires your consent, and is voluntary. I recently participated in Stanford University Forum, where the overwhelming consensus about Law today, is that since Law began incorporating all of its various entities, that this stripped them of power, and put all areas of Law in the hot seat, and that the vast majority of laws if placed under a microscope, would have no substance. The key for now is to stay out of their courts. The fact that this fiat industry was literally berthed in fraud, should speak volumes. For defense of my argument I reference the Clearfield doctrine
@@Don-sx5xv Thanks Don
WHAT FACTS OR EVIDENCE DO YOU (cop/prosecutor/judge) RELY ON TO PROVE THAT LAW APPLIES TO ME?" COP:opinion PROSECUTOR:opinion JUDGE:opinion... OBJECTION! NON RESPONSIVE! start over. IS THERE EVIDENCE THAT LAW APPLIES TO ME? y/n WHAT IS THAT EVIDENCE, ARE YOU WITHHOLDING IT FROM ME? start over. More @ marcstevens (dot) net
You still can't come up with a logical, coherent thought, can you?
Obviously it does concern you, by living where you do you are under the authority of the law of that jurisdiction. Yes, consent of the legislature,your representatives, make the law. Not your individual consent, THAT would be the 51% majority rule.
You forgot to mention how statutes were made to reign in Government officials not point out to the people
Try again. If you are arrested, you cannot charge the state by the hour for them holding you. There is no contract, for there to be a valid contract, both sides have to agree and there has to be something of value given in consideration.
Actually if you are in wrongfully in custody you get payed out as proven by a few cases stands to prove that yes every minute hour day month year in custody is payed out or payed to
Bill, can you be contacted on Facebook? Also, when you say the judge only has three tries to contract with you, what happens after that? When you ask for full disclosure, what do we expect will be said?
+Zac Pini No, unless it was an email that I may have missed.
Is there a possible way to communicate with anyone about all this by phone? I am here in Los Angeles California U.S.A.
Mobsters
still good info mate
does this aply to german courts as well?
You cannot recover money by claiming. "Sure u can arrest me & take me to court, for $ ". No one volunteers to go to jail.
What about divorce court
This guy is on to it and has been for years. You need to understand WHAT THEIR WORDS MEAN... eg the 1999 interpretation Act. If the govt just rocked up and said we're screwing you in plain English what do you think would happen? The remedy IS THERE but they have no legal obligation to tell you what it is. It's up to you to work it out.
How do you go about paperwork for a summary ticket no seatbelt on my passenger.
Passengers are fee paying, was your journey for commerce ? If yes your entitled to be ticketed. Or if you were carrying a guest and it was non commercial then dont ignore the contract and write a letter to deal.with it
ya that shit doesn't work out here...they just don't care about getting caught using force to make you accept their jurisdiction...
It's called "Law" and it's under the authority of the Constitution, which the People create. Everyone is equal, I can arrest you for an offense, you could arrest me. The law has the power the we as the People give it, if you don't agree you can try to change it, but your agreement is not needed for the law to have authority over you.
Law is purely a interpretation of words and New Zealand does not have a written constitution as proven by a mix of laws and the mix ethnicity on our whenua
You choose where you live. Every country is de jure. I don't need to show any proof of authority. Yes, you consent to your representatives by living where you do. They represent the geographic area you choose to live in, QED they are your representatives.
thank you
I doesn't apply in any courtroom, in any country.
From The People, of course.
Thats why we never go too court 21:03 well why bother with procedures you now compromised this video as its very application is missleading
Wear does the “elite” (I’m thinking they know all this stuff) get this kind of education at???
Proof of authority=Constitution, QED De Jure.
2:30
You need to label this as a comedy video so people will know that it isn't reality.
Post it on here. I'm not going to give a habitual liar and sociopath my real name and address.
None of that will prevent them from arresting you and you cannot collect on any such claims.
Yes your right they can still arrest you however the judge gets the last say as overseers of a case
So where is the remedy for those who have actual crimes comitted against them?
What do you propose a community should do about the rampant corruption which has now permeated their parliaments, executive and judiciary?
Shouldn't you be advocating for the community restoring justice and equity back into their lives by proper application of common law trial by jury?
N.B. procedures, not "proceEdures", as in your title.
This guy is barking mad.
Let the record show: no proof of claim has been given.
Looks like you have lost, you have not provided any proof of the original claim. You cannot provide a single example to support your claim.
A person is a fictitious bankrupt corporation.