EOF;
?>]]>
DVD description coming soon!]]>
I found that the judge basically denied my motion for the same reason he denied my motion for an order to show cause because he thinks it is frivolous that I am requesting a hearing in the matter. These denials tell me that they do not wish to hear anything that I have to say or give me any remedy through the federal courts.
My conclusion is that I have no remedy in the federal court, which makes sense if one views the Constitution as a separate court from the federal or appellate authority. Instead, remedy should lie in the judicial power, which is the Article III Court designated in the Constitution.
It's becoming clear that maybe I should inform the people at the Liberty Dollar about my little "investigation by filing", because they may be able to learn some things from the orders the judge has written in regard to my motions. I'll keep you posted.
]]>I decided, due to the situation in this particular case, that I would take a totally different approach to getting heard. I have already began the process, but it may take a little time since I'm not an expert in this kind of stuff.... at least not self-appointed.
I think the main point to remember here is that I'm basically trying to get a hearing which I believe I have a right to (see the Fifth Amendment). At this point it doesn't matter if I can win the case or not, but I won't be able to find out unless I get a hearing. So we are boiling this process down to the Right to he heard. That Right is in the First Amendment where it says, "... to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Most people misunderstand the 'petition' process, and think that it goes to Congress or the federal government, when this is the general idea, the specific process of 'petition' for purposes of obtaining a remedy, is "a formal application to a court requesting judicial action on a certain matter." If you read the next paragraph for the definition of petition in Black's Law, you just might come to the realization that this process may very well be the remedy we have been looking for all this time.
]]>Although it appears that I have been precluded from proceeding in this particular matter and the Magistrate advises me to pay close attention to the Forfeiture and Criminal cases, I still have a few options that I believe may give a remedy. I'll be working on this for the next couple weeks and will keep everyone posted with the results. It not over yet!
]]>
EOF;
?>]]>
DVD description coming soon!]]>
EOF;
?>]]>
DVD review coming soon!]]>
On April 15, 2010 I sent into the federal court in North Carolina a motion to quash the four warrants that were issued against the Liberty Dollar back in November of 2007. The court unsealed the case and gave the United States ten (10) days to respond to my motion. Last Monday the attorney for the U.S. sent over his response requesting the court deny my motion. Thursday morning (4-28-10) the Court received my reply to the U.S.'s response and we are now waiting for the ruling. As soon as I hear, I will let everyone know.
]]>They had to take control of each branch of government separately and control them to their own ends. Congress and the Presidency were easy by way of controlling the voting or counting of votes. The Judicial Power was a tougher problem. This required precise cases set up to go to the Supreme Court and distinguish Constitutional law from Contract or Commercial law.
]]> In 1881 the first case, Julliard v. Greenman, was fashioned to allow commercial paper, called private bank notes, to circulate as if it were money, but was required to be backed 100% by specie (real gold or silver).This case originated from a sale of cotton, a commercial transaction between States, and since the supreme court had already ruled the 1862 "legal tender laws" passed by Congress to be unconstitutional, they had to come up with a case that ruled the "legal tender laws" were constitutional. Julliard v. Greenman upheld the acts without reference to the war power. In this case, the Court inferred the power from the express power to borrow money and the implied power to issue bills of credit. Remember, Congress' powers extend to this case only because it was a case regarding interstate commerce.
The Supreme Court, by talking out of both sides of its mouth, is effectively creating another jurisdiction that is based upon the forced acceptance of a currency that is not agreed to by free people. This currency is forced upon the commercial business of those engaging in commerce that is backed by..., well, the commercial businesses themselves!
So, through the creation of paper money and forcing businesses into accept the commercial paper, Congress has now created a "country" (the Chinese call it "paper tiger") that is a de facto representation of the original constitutional requirement that "no state shall... make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts."
The commercial businesses that grew up around free Americans have replaced the original money system and thereby polluted the original laws that the Constitution declares. They've supplanted the common law with the Admiralty/Maritime legal commercial system.
These two systems are still in America today, but the people have been convinced, thanks to J.P. Morgan and friends, the media, professionals, and the public school system that the commercial remedies are the only remedies for both business and individuals.
The truth, or the proverbial ace in the whole, is that we still have Constitutional remedies for those who choose to use them. Unfortunately each individual must take the proper action to avail themselves of these remedies and a lawyer or agent will not and cannot effect these remedies for the individual.
]]>Civil rights violations are filed in a judicial court and not in the administrative court. The facts that constitute a "rights" violation must be determined at the administrative level before any court of law may take jurisdiction. There must be a set of facts that are sufficient to constitute a violation of one's rights and the agent's supervisor or commissioner must agree that those facts occurred or failed to occur before a case can be heard or continued in a Judicial Court.
]]> Take a look at the definition of "court" and its relationship to the definition of politics and sovereignty.Court: A space which is uncovered, but which may be partly or wholly enclosed by buildings or walls. The person and suit of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be.
Political: Pertaining or relating to the policy or administration of government, state, or nation.
Sovereignty: Supreme political authority; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration.
These key concepts, when understood, give each of use confidence that we indeed do have the freedom and liberty to protect our rights personally, without an attorney!
I see the Constitution as the three parts of government that are operated separately. The power of the Court is in the third power, called Judicial Power. This power is available to each individual as a remedy to protect their rights, in person, without an attorney.
Is there a higher power in the government than the Article III of the Constitution granting Judicial Power to the One Supreme Court? No. If the States lost their rights or somehow gave them up (by way of the 14th Amendment), would that leave the power of the State with each individual to protect their own rights personally, as if each individual was his own "State" or would that power go to the federal government where you can hire or be appointed an attorney to "represent" your "defense"... on behalf of the Federal Bar Association or Federal Government?
The Constitutional Court (Article III) is the Administrative Court. Where else can you talk about the Constitution?
]]>
EOF;
?>]]>
In this seminar Zeke focuses on protecting our individual rights. He explains that each of us as individuals are the chief justice in the "one supreme court." Court is defined as anywhere we are, "the suit of the sovereign." Judicial Power is defined and related to the two other powers created by our Constitution. The three powers are then related to the three powers within a court. We learn that the Judicial Power extends to all cases, law and equity, and how we exercise this power when we call for a due process hearing. He teaches us that our Constitution is a trust, but that we must act. Failing to do so is presumed consent and a loser. We must rebut the presumption made by the agent in calling for a due process hearing requesting their evidence. Our Constitutional rights are presumed waived when we don't give notice to the agency when we are acted upon.
The Attorney General is defined and shown to oversee all governmental agencies. Also explained is how our consent to representation is necessary to apply their statue. When we fail to act as the attorney specific, we allow the Attorney General to do it for us and to us!
Nearly an hour of questions follow the one hour seminar.
Major topics include: legal definitions, due process, presumption, our Constitution, judicial power, law, and equity.
On a whiteboard, Zeke breaks down: the dual or more meanings of words, powers created by our Constitution, the Attorney Generals Office, and how we consent to giving up our power by our silence.
This is said not to just call them liars, it's to make you aware that they are out to mislead you and that they do not have your best interest in mind.
If you feel government has anything to offer; jobs, healthcare, or any good or service that will benefit you, then you do not understand what I mean when I say that they are liars.
]]> They have no reason to tell the truth. Their jobs depend on the revenue taken from the people by any means. The easiest way to get the people to comply is to get them to pay the fines, taxes, and fees. Just mention court and 97% of the people go numb. Then these same people believe what the cops, attorneys, or government agents tell them they should do.They tell you to sign the ticket and that you are not guilty. This, in reality, is a lie. They tell you not to say anything and wait for a lawyer. Why would you want to do that? This would make you appear guilty in the eyes of the cop, who, right now, is acting as the accuser. He's the accuser and he is telling us how to conduct our defense?
Then you appear at the courthouse. You are guilty right then when the magistrate asks you how you plea. Let's say, for argument's sake, that you are guilty of whatever the agent has accused you of. Your ticket tells you that you have a civil right to prove that you didn't commit the offense or prove you are not guilty.
You were guilty when you showed up at the courthouse because after you received the ticket, you failed to make the proper move that would avoid your admission of guilt and settle the matter instead of the "court". In this instant, the burden of taking action and/or producing evidence had fallen upon you, the uninformed, and to your determinant, like many of us before, you failed to act.
Studying the principals of law and equity can give you a better understanding of why government, by nature, is evil and that the price of freedom is the constant practice and exercise of the Judicial power, by the individual, by way of substantive and procedural due process.
Learning to control government agents, when you know they are lying to you, takes a certain posture and frame of mind based on the knowledge of certain legal words and fundamentals of how government works. This can give you tools to be victorious in the courts whoever you are. Last year I realized that the "Traffic Court," the "Foreclosure Court," and the "Family Law Courts" are all based on the same fundamental principals of Quasi Judicial Law!
]]>We are testing a new newsletter program and I'm going to be writing a little more often as it appears that people are having great difficulties due to the lack of information readily available.
For example: Joe Stack, who flew a plane into the IRS building in Texas. He just didn't have the knowledge of how to deal with his "relationship" with the IRS.
Whenever two parties have a dispute, they are in a relationship. The legal system sets the rules of the relationship so that disputes or issues can be resolved in a "fair and just" manner. This is known as "due process" and applies both broadly and specifically as to each individual case.
]]> We learn about the civil or criminal legal systems from the public schools, the media, and society in general. The lawyers are also taught these forms of "law". However, the technical legal system that the general population knows very little about is called the "Constitutional" or "administrative" legal system.This understanding is what sets me apart from Joe Stack, who was born the same year as I was but didn't get the information that I had when he felt helpless against the IRS. Although I paid a very high price to get the information, he ended up paying the ultimate price because he lacked the information. It is truly sad.
If it was known that Constitutional Law is performed through administrative procedures, otherwise known as due process, it could greatly relieve anyone facing the terror of the IRS or any other state or federal agency.
Most of the information that is helpful in understanding why things do not appear the way they seem is that the courts, whether civil, criminal, or administrative, proceed by words and processes that have different meanings than the general social interpretations. There is also a special law dictionary that is used to interpret "legal" words and phrases. Today, the courts use Black's Law Dictionary. Studying these legal interpretations is critical in gaining a foothold in your relationship with any agency.
If Joe Stack had known about the administrative procedures and how to properly raise a defense to the "agency law", he would have been able to relieve the pressure that was upon him and find a peaceful way to resolve his issue.
Hosea 4:6: My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.
]]>