for those of you who are in the courts
Inbox
x
Inbox
2:37 AM (15 hours ago)
 | | |||
This writing belongs to someone else. All that is not highlighted in colour is not my work but I have used very similar wording in their boardroom. I will type something in highlights which I have personally done and is as written directly below.
The identity of the ‘person’ in their boardroom (so called court) (br) is paramount to continuing with any matter before them. So the prosecution has to accept the identity if he/she is questioned by you about your identity before the entity at the bench assumes/accepts your identity. If you do not question your identity to the prosecution before the entity (so called magistrate or judge) at the bench addresses you, then it can only be implied it is you. A criminal matter is known as a thing. (The name is written as the Cestui Que Vi – DOE Mary June). I civil matter in addressed as a PERSON – MARY JUNE DOE. A thing cannot speak, hear, read or write. It has no life. It has no cell to take breath or live. Therefore this thing can only be represented…someone needs to speak on its behalf. A PERSON is the representative in commerce for the living man and woman. It has a voice and can trade and make contract for the benefit of the man and woman. So before they can proceed with the content written as below, ask the following to the prosecution, then to the entity at the bench: (I’d be very surprised if the entity at the bench doesn’t say, “I don’t understand 3 times”. If they do say it then you say under God and before you I wish to be set free and left alone. I do not want the prosecution or anyone or anything inflicted another tort against me or my person.
I am Mary June Doe. I am a woman who lives and was given breath by God. I stand here before you today. Do you accept I am who I say I am? (Now go back and read the last part in the pink section of what to do next.
How to corner your "Judge."
Judge: do you understand the charges against you? Or
How do you plea?
You: I do not understand, I am confused, may I ask a few questions so that I may understand? I do not understand the nature and cause of the action against you.
Judge: Ok, what would you like to know?
You: Is this going to be a civil action or a criminal action?
Judge: it is a civil action.
You: Thank you judge, let the record show that his is a civil action, I motion to dismiss for the lack of a sworn complain by an injured party because no injured party is present here in the court room. Judge: This is a criminal action.
You let the record show that this is a criminal action. Now I have another question. The constitution grants this court two criminal jurisdictions,
One is jurisdiction under common law and the other one is under admiralty or military tribunal venue from article one section 8 clause 17 of the Constitution. In which of these two jurisdictions does the court intend to try me?
Judge: (he will say, Under one admiralty or common law jurisdiction)
You: Thank you judge, Let the record show that this criminal action is under (which ever one he chose) jurisdiction.
If the answer is common law then you say I motion to dismiss because there is no sworn complaint by and injured party and there is no injured party present.
If he says that the state of xxxxxx is the injured party then you say, Judge: I motion to dismiss we are in the wrong court, if the state is a party to the case they can not also be the judge and prosecutors. This case needs to be transferred to federal court or be dismissed.
Judge: You need to get a licensed lawyer to get advice.
You: Thank you judge but I don't think that you would be violating your oath of office if you did your duty under the constitution. You see I am not seeking legal advice what I want to know is legal intent. I have a right to appear as myself in my own person without having a licensed lawyer and in order to intelligently defend myself I have to know which jurisdiction this court is under, because the rules of criminal procedure under common law jurisdiction are very different than the ones under an admiralty jurisdiction or military tribunal. I need to know under which jurisdiction you intend to try me in order to proceed with this case. The sixth amendment of the constitution grants me the right to know which jurisdiction will be applied and it grants you the duty to inform me. I don't believe that you would be violating your oath of office for doing your duty there for will you please answer the question so that the court will be identified?
If the judge continues to force the issue about the lawyer you say, Let the record show that I, the accused in this action have asked the court to divulge the nature and cause of this action upon the authority of the sixth amendment and that this court has failed to inform me of the nature and cause of this action. Further more let the record show that this court intends to bring this action forward against me under a secret jurisdiction known only to licensed lawyers.
Judge: This is a statutory jurisdiction.
You: Thank you judge let the record show that the court intends to bring an action against me under a statutory jurisdiction. But judge, that raises another question, I have never heard of a criminal action under statutory jurisdiction. There is no statutory jurisdiction established by the constitution. I would be happy to accept this Judge If you could tell me where I could find the published rules of criminal procedure under statutory jurisdiction and where this nature and cause information exists. It is imperative that I know where this information is so that I can conduct a fair defense and a fair trial.
The judge may threaten you with contempt. If so say, Judge I do not wish to be held in contempt. I simply wish to exercise my 6th amendment rights that you disclose the nature and cause of the action against me. I can provide court citations that show that exorcising a constitutional right can not be held against me. Please either disclose the jurisdiction that this court is under or dismiss the case against me.
Judge: admiralty
You: let the record show that court is under admiralty jurisdiction. And that this court intends to proceed with a criminal action against me as a condition of contract under an admiral jurisdiction as a military tribunal under article 1 section 8 clause 17. However judge you must realize that you have no such jurisdiction without also having a valid international contract in dispute. I am not aware of entering into any international contracts so I deny that any such contract exists. Will you please instruct the prosecuting lawyer to inform this court if any such international contract exists. And enter it into evidence and show how I am a party to it and how I am compelled to perform under it. If the prosecutor can not do so I move for this case to be dismissed.
Judge: case dismissed
You: Thank you judge let the record show that this case # is dismissed
Judge: I am entering a guilty plea for you now.
You: Judge I object, for you to enter a plea on my behalf you would then be practicing law from the bench. That would be my job or my lawyer's job has the court made a judicial determination that I am not guilty?
Judge: No I have not made a determination.
You: I motion for you to remove your plea so that I can enter my own plea once I have been informed of the nature and cause of this action.
Judge: I enter a plea of no contest on your behalf
You: I object entering a plea on my behalf is practicing law from the bench That would be my job or my lawyer's job. I motion that the plea be removed. For the court to enter a plea on my behalf of no contest would result in the court treating me as though I was guilty. The court is trying to constrain me to an unfair plea choice in the absence of me knowing the true nature and cause of the action against me.
Judge: this case is continued and I am ordering you to get a lawyer
You: Has the court made a judicial determination to deny me the right to defend myself in my own person and to forcing me to hire a lawyer who will conspire with the court to try me under a secret jurisdiction known only to the judge and the licensed lawyer?
LOOK UP THESE WORDS. There is also some stuff here for those ones who really want their day in court.
ReplyDeleteInbox
x
Donna Aussie
Aug 22 (2 days ago)
to bcc: me
There is heaps and heaps of things I can say. I cannot say for sure that I am right or wrong. What I say below is very basic info and may not be suitable for all issues in court.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/cla2002161/s3.html
civil liability act WA. There should be one in each state.
http://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/media/421792/2683869_1.pdf
civil law limitations details for each state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_politic
this is what the local councils are
below is what it says in the local government act. This is the WA act but I am sure there is a scheming act in other states with similar wording. Body corporate and natural persons are words used to describe local government.
Some words you need to learn and some things you should know.
You do not lodge an argument to the court.
You do not use the word argument ie. My argument is... when you are talking in the court.
If the judge asks you something like, “Are you relying on your affidavit for your only argument?” you need to object to that question. That question or anything to do with the word argument is creating controversy when there is none.
Embarrassing – they know not what is. Meaning they have no idea.
Don't ask any questions in an affidavit. They are only for statement of fact.
Don't hand the story to the prosecution. The accuser needs to answer all your questions. If there is a claim you want to make, change it from a claim to a question. Let their answer incriminate themselves.
They all know they are a corporation or a company or an agent for something else. Why bother making those claims. Just ask the questions. Ask if they can verify to the court your identity. Have you personally signed something to verify your identity or that you have accepted something they are claiming.
Is there a bill that is an incohate instrument. If they are asking for costs eg they say costs of 145. Ask 145 what. Don't you say the word dollars.
If you want an answer or an action then don't use the words could or can. Use would you or will you. You want cases discharged not just dismissed.
Address the prosecutor first. Ask them to accept who you are, by the name you go by. Then let’s see if the magistrate or judge addresses you to understand. Maybe you now ask the judge if they understand that your name is xxx. The prosecutor probably can’t state anything either.
Terms to look up.. Learn these words and you will learn who you are, or at the least who you should be and who you don’t want to be. You may also learn why.
ReplyDeleteASSIGNATION
ASSIGNOR
CESTUI QUE USE
CESTUI QUE VIE
CESTUI QUE TRUST
PETITION OF RIGHT
PRESCRIPTION
SOIT DROIT FAIT AL PARTIE
ABATEMENT
ABEYANCE
IMANCIPATION
ABEYANCE
POSSESSION
PERSONAL PROPERTY
PERSON
MAN
NATURAL PERSON
NATURAL EQUITY
CHANCERY
NATURAL OBLIGATION
TORT
LIEN
TORT CLAIMS ACT
TORTFEASOR
TORTIOUS
TABULA IN NAUFRAGIO
SUCCESSION
PERAMBULATIONE FACEIEND, WRIT DE
PER STIRPES
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGAL AND LAWFUL
ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS
INFORMANT
IMPLIED RIGHTS
HOLDER
HOLDER IN DUE COURSE
BEARER
ISSUER
Environment Protections & Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
ReplyDeletehttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/epabca1999588/
The act states in s3, that
1) The objects of this Act are:
(a) to provide for the protection of the environment,
(d) to promote a co operative approach to the protection and management of the environment involving governments, the community, land holders and indigenous peoples; and
(e) to assist in the co operative implementation of Australia's international environmental responsibilities
The act then states in s528 Definitions that
"environment" includes: (a) ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities
Now the meaning of the word “People” under Australian law is not defined.
The meaning of person is in the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 s 22
Meaning of certain words
(1) In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears:
(a) expressions used to denote persons generally (such as " person ", "party", "someone", "anyone", "no one", "one", "another" and "whoever"), include a body politic or corporate as well as an individual;
(aa) individual means a natural person ;
(Very important to note the use of the words contrary and includes. Contrary tell us that this meaning applies unless there is a “differing” or “inconsistent” meaning. Includes however is a word that gathers every definition under its meaning. There can be no inconsistency of meaning, because all the contrary intentions have been gathered under that word “includes”. At no time in this Act is the word “exclude” used in any reference to free will, sovereignty, private ownership rights, etc of any kind.)
The legal meaning of “people” as defined in Blacks Law Dictionary No 1
“A state; as the people of the state of New York. A nation of its collective and political capacity. “
So, the only definition of ‘people’ we have is the legal interpretation, & the creators of this International Treaty, have been very careful not to place this over the individual, but over the collective of individuals.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, to prove you have these rules now enslaving you, you must first identify yourself with the collective.
One interpretation may be found in the Criminal Code Act 1995, where people is always defined as more than one person by implication. (More research will be necessary re this word.)
This means that when the Australian government makes rules about the environment, those rules include YOU (under the collective) in the jurisdiction.
This then allows the Australian Government to apply restrictions, orders, enforcements and the like over YOUR (under the collective) activities as defined in the UN Global Biodiversity Assessment Report.
Hence such imposed activities as Fluoride – being the imposition of a supposedly healthy activity OVER the people and the community, who of course come under the responsibility of govt via the EPBC Act 1999. They are making sure the “environment” is “healthy”.
YOU are NO longer a free will person, because the government have “stolen” your free will and replaced it with their rules.
If we go to the list of unsustainable activities that were listed on the UN The Global Biodiversity Assessment Report - they are ALL human activities.
These activities involve leisure, work, homes and food creation involving land use.
All activities, on land, are defined as unsustainable.
How then are people supposed to remain alive if every activity they perform, on land, is unsustainable.
And if any activity, on land, that sustains the People, is no longer permissible under the “global crisis” as promulgated by Gore – are the People going to be allowed to continue to have children, make personal choices as to the kind of life they wish to have, live and work where they choose, eat the kind of food they choose, etc?
Here is a list of the things that the The Global Biodiversity Assessment Report directed by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) considers Unsustainable -
Ski Runs - Grazing of Livestock: cows, sheep, goats, horses - Disturbance of the Soil Surface - Large hoofed animals, compaction of soil, reducing filtration - Fencing of Pastures or Paddocks - Agriculture - Modern Farm Production Systems - Chemical Fertilizers - Herbicides - Building Materials - Industrial Activities - Human-Made caves of brick and mortar, concrete and steel - Paved and Tarred roads, highways, rails - Railroads - Floor and Wall Tiles - Aquaculture - Technology Improvements - Farmlands, Rangelands - Pastures, Rangelands - Pastures - Fish Ponds - Plantations - Modern Hunting - Harvesting of Timber - Logging Activities - Fossil Fuels - Used for driving various kinds of machines - Dams, Reservoirs, Straightening Rivers - Power Line Construction -Economic systems that fail to set a proper value on the environment - Inappropriate Social Structures - Weaknesses in Legal and Institutional Systems - Modern Attitudes toward nature - Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions - Private Property - Population Growth - Human Population Density - Consumerism - Fragmentation of Habitat - cemeteries, derelict lands, rubbish tips, etc - Sewers, Drain Systems, Pipelines - Land use that serves human needs - Fisheries - Golf Courses - Scuba Diving - Synthetic drugs - Fragmentation - Agricultural development, Forestry Urbanization (impervious surfaces)
http://earthwatch.unep.ch/biodiversity/assessment.php
The other issue to understand is that an International Treaty such as the EPBC Act 1999, is a “contractural” arrangement between two or more different parties.
If this act has effectively “enslaved” the people by removing their free will & their sovereignty, who are the other parties outside the Aust Federal Govt who now have certain as yet undetermined rights of foreign sovereignty in Australia and over the people?
Created July 2009
The National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 enables Every State and
ReplyDeleteTerritory of Australia to enter into the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment dated 1.5.1992 between the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA on the first part and the Various States and Territories of Australia of the Second Part contains the following words:
“On Signing this agreement these Companies above agree that they are NOT legitimate Governments Territories or Councils under State Lawful Constitution or the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1901 Proclaimed and Gazetted."
DO YOU THINK THAT THESE AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO BY THE RESPECTIVE STATE AND COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA ARE ADMISSIONS THAT your Local Government (Councils) have NO authority AND THAT WE HAVE DEFACTO GOVERNMENTS IN AUSTRALIA AND NOT DEJURE GOVERNMENTS AT ALL?
DO YOU THINK THE SIGNATORIES HAVE ADMITTED TO THESE FACTS.