Just In From The Frozen North....

[jackieg]

Hi!

I will admit right off the bat that I am not green at this freedom issue at hand.

When one is stranded in the frozen north it has a tendency to edge one on to take a closer look at matters....legal matters and lawful matters alike.

Hell!....any and all matters.

Where am I?

I am situated on the N.W. area of the globe where a land mass simply known as and goes by the name, "Canada", wherein lies the territorial province commonly called "Saskatchewan" therein, exists the city of Saskatoon.

So far over the past 3 years I have had my private property seized, stolen and destroyed 15 times.

I have been given in excess of 14,000.00 in tickets for going from point A to point B in my auto.

I have had my computer seized by five vice cops and then had to take the matter up with the Court of Queen's Bench in order to get the cops to give it back.

I have been hauled into traffic court in manacles and thrown in jail for 61 days for traveling with my private conveyance of the day.

I even attempted to put a 49cc motor kit on my Schwinn with pedals attached and they (cops) simply jacked me up, called a paddy wagon loaded my bike, handed me a ticket for unregistered vehicle and took off.

They refuse to give it back so I sent them (cops) and the court a "bill."

It is now entering the collection phase.

Not a single statute on the books governing this 2.5 Chinese pony assisted bicycle.

Personally....I think the cops have mental issues....serious mental issues.....that must be dealt with.

I have gotten them to the point where, if they don't understand the nature of their own charges then, "how can they show up in court?"

It plays absolute havoc with their pea brains when I produce a certified true copy of a letter from my former Federal Member of Parliament stating that I exist completely free of all statutory restraints, obligations and restrictions.

Last time (Sept. 10) when I went to court I stated that I was appearing as agent for the accused.

The Judge and traffic court prosecutor lost their marbles....the JP says, "we know who you are Mr. Harper" and before I could respond the prosecutor says I have $800.00 in outstanding fines and the JP is sitting there with the arrest warrant, pushing the button under the bench summoning the sheriffs.

They couldn't get me out of that court room fast enough.

I thought, these sneaky shysters are now "double billing."

I spent 61 days in jail for those tickets and did not owe them a dime.

The real reason for arresting me was to get a look at the fist full of documents I had with me.

I had a dozen affidavits along with proof of service proving beyond any doubt that their actions were null and void for want of dispute....among other reasons.

I am of the firm belief that all court cases are won or lost prior to court opening.

I now go to court as the prosecutor (creditor) seeking redress and recourse.

I have served a claim of right on all concerned and affected parties thereby relinquishing their claim to being my representative at all four levels of government.

Who says you can't fire someone claiming to be your representative?

I can't find anyone to rebut this claim........absolutely, no one.

And I have had more than one top gun lawyer attempt to refute my claim.....where they get down to the third level of a seven layered rabbit hole then, simply "hit a brick wall."

A cornered rat is a dangerous animal and one must be careful.

I take no shit from no one and am strictly 'hard core.'

So....it's "stay alert...stay alive."

And by the way...Let's rock!.......the hell out of the governments boat.

[NonEntity]

Hi Jackieg,

I must applaud your spunk.

But I also must comment that you seem to be under the misconception that you have "rights."

As Doc Phil says, "So how's that workin' for ya?"

Still, I have to admire your spunk. Go for it!

- NonE

[jackieg]

Thanks!
Just some thoughts.......

Rights speak of division...i.e. STATE v. Freeman
Rights can not be bestowed on anyone.
Rights must be claimed.....with a "claim of right.'
No claim of right = no right to claim anything.
Now, you were saying about rights........?

[eye2i2hear]

Widgets speak of division...i.e. STATE v. Freeman
Widgets can not be bestowed on anyone.
Widgets must be claimed.....with a "claim of widget.'
No claim of widget = no widget to claim anything.
Now, you were saying about [strike]widgets[/strike] "rights"........?

"Rights must be claimed" is close; more accurately, rights are generally claims, as that's all they inherently are (akin to how a lot of folks claim there is a God called Allah/claim there is a State/claim taxation isn't armed robbery/etc). Claims either in hopes of acceptance by another or if rejected, backed by violent enforcement?

One wishing to explore the concept of rights might at least approach them rather than as claims, as appeals.
Wherein I'm learning that appeals to empirical-focused logic, reason, and rationale are more valuable than such claims to [strike]widgets[/strike] "rights".

Hearken the day when rights, along with the notion/claim that such are endowed by a Creator/Providence/God goes the way of another distracting clause in yet another claim/document: negroes being 3/5ths human.

*footnote: some of the contemporary synonyms for this word claim are telling: take, demand, assert, title/entitled, exact

[jackieg]

Appeals are allowed as such, that a guilty plea must be entered upon showing up in court.
Claims of right.....on the other hand....if not rebutted....stand as truth and the matter to which the law is applied.
"He who does not deny....admits."

[Darren Dirt]

jackieg Wrote:Hi!
Who says you can't fire someone claiming to be your representative?

I can't find anyone to rebut this claim........absolutely, no one.

which is why most of AiLL'ers don't "vote".

Of course, if someone CLAIMS this but is unwilling (unable!) to offer factual evidence proving it, then not only can/should you "fire" them, but methinks a civil lawsuit (at the very least!) is justified...

jackieg Wrote:... a certified true copy of a letter from my former Federal Member of Parliament stating that I exist completely free of all statutory restraints, obligations and restrictions.

keep in mind, though the message of said letter is factually true and proveably correct, The Thugs With The Guns "is just doing mah job" and your letters surely don't stop the terrorcrats from attempting to control you and yours. Delay, maybe, but stop, definitely not (otherwise you wouldn't have posted what you did ).

The fact is, as Marc often points out, it's all about Public Relations. Unfortunately, the Dumbed Down populace thinks Simon Cowell is witty, and that the "state" is a real thing that must be obeyed and complied with and financially supported through [strike]taxes[/strike]armed robbery ... so when "letters" like yours, and those along the lines of Mary Croft, etc. are brought into court rooms, the Black Robed Lawyers have a field day mocking you and the peanut gallery knows so little about their "rights" (ha ha, couldn't resist) that they side with him rather than you (mostly out of fear, actually, not just ignorance).


Again, if that letter (certified or not, and by WHOM is it certified, by the way -- someone you consented to represent you? ) says what you say it does, and you present it to [strike]peace[/strike]law enforcement officers or judges or even the local media, what happens? How's that working out for you?

[eye2i2hear]

Darren Dirt Wrote:

jackieg Wrote:Hi!
Who says you can't fire someone claiming to be your representative?

I can't find anyone to rebut this claim........absolutely, no one.

which is why most of AiLL'ers don't "vote".

Of course, if someone CLAIMS this but is unwilling (unable!) to offer factual evidence proving it, then not only can/should you "fire" them, but methinks a civil lawsuit (at the very least!) is justified...

butt...
can you fire someone you never hired in the first place...

(maybe jus tell'em to leave?! or tell him to )

:wacky:

[Darren Dirt]

eye2i2hear Wrote:

Darren Dirt Wrote:

jackieg Wrote:Hi!
Who says you can't fire someone claiming to be your representative?

I can't find anyone to rebut this claim........absolutely, no one.

which is why most of AiLL'ers don't "vote".

Of course, if someone CLAIMS this but is unwilling (unable!) to offer factual evidence proving it, then not only can/should you "fire" them, but methinks a civil lawsuit (at the very least!) is justified...

butt...
can you fire someone you never hired in the first place...

(maybe jus tell'em to leave?! or tell him to )

:wacky:

all the italic text above 'splains why we're all on the same page... Just poor at communicatin it, but we're gettin better with practicin , don't we?

PS: Kurt, dammit, the BOLD doesn't show up well in the quotes... must be the font -- can you change it to a different font (not a larger size, since it's a quote and often 2i2 and NonE quote each other's essays in near-entirety ) ... peas and tanks.

[jackieg]

In response to all of the unproved assumptions and presumptions the members of this board have made....

Especially the ones illiterate in the 'law."

On the subject of courts.

When you go to court they are trying to use contract law....

Now lets get back to this courtroom scenario, when the defendant does not rebutt the unproved assumptions and presumptions.

Then according to the laws of procedure in an equity court your failure to rebutt them must mean what???

THEY MUST BE TRUE!!...BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T REBUTT THEM!!

Which under the terms of contract law you, have accepted the proposition.

You didn't rebutt them right?....Which is acceptance...right?

So when you have offer and acceptance...isn't that a contract??

Doesn't that supersede any provisions required of formal law and procedure?.....Yes?....No?,

YES!!.....Because both the parties are in agreement!!

And they can agree to waive remedy and provisions of law anytime they want.

Now I said to these people that I knew who were confused as to why in the world the judge found the defendant guilty when there was no evidence for the plaintiff in the case.

He found the defendant guilty because he allowed and agreed the he should be found guilty.....he volunteered.

After all...haven't you heard everyone in prison is there because they volunteered.....of their own free will?

If you volunteered....doesn't that mean you had a contract??

Then....WHAT'S THAT GOT TO DO WITH LAW???

The end result was there was no evidence brought forward to rebutt the presumptions.

So... the defense rested.

If the defense didn't rebutt the presumptions.....did the plaintiff have a duty to bring evidence to the case???

OF COURSE NOT!!!

Because they only have to bring evidence if the defendant rebutts the presumptions.

ALL RISE FOR THE JUDGE!!

Okay?...so here is what's going through the judges mind....he's thinking okay...there was charges of wrong doing...there was no evidence by the state, but the defendant came on and never rebutted any of the charges...because they didn't rebutt the charges....I as the judge must weigh....are the charges true as far as this case is concerned...or are the charges wrong?...as far as this case is concerned.

It has to do with what is the intent of the parties here...if there's no evidence...we can't rule on evidence...so it's not a law case.

It's a case in equity....we just want to know what the intent of the parties is....seeing that everyone wants to know what the news is and the news never gets to the facts....then they just want to know how everyone feels.

There's no facts before the court....there's no evidence before the court...we just want to know how everybody feels.....do they want to be found guilty or not??

If they want to be found guilty...then we will go ahead and by their agreement ....we'll find them guilty!

The judge will sit back and says, well look...even though the charges are not proved, they must be true.

ALL RISE FOR THE JUDGE!!

Jack

[eye2i2hear]

(where of course "wrong" is ultimately, in most of this, relative only to what one values or doesn't-- since we're talking facts?!)

one classic example herein: "contract"
factually, what is a "contract"?

bonus classic example: "law"
factually, what is a "law"?

Double Jeopardy question: factually who has the authority to decide?

Sing it for us Tina: "What's fact got to do with it, got to do with it..."

(ultimately- factually -absolutely nothing* to the one willing to use The Gun in The Room-- equally armed by the enforcement of his incantations via the artistry of words...)

*["absolutely nothing... say it again, ya'll...".. with shades for us ole farts to yet another song lyric, "War (Hunh, good gawd ya'll)" by The Temptations]

to paraphrase marc:

[Marc Stevens]

Jack, you wrote: "unproved assumptions and presumptions the members of this board have made..." I would say most of your post consists of the same and I will go line by line and show you. I may have to come back later and finish though.

First, you write about contract law, guilt and jail, it looks like you're writing about a criminal proceeding.

"When you go to court they are trying to use contract law...." You are assuming the judge and prosecutor are using contract law in a "criminal" context. You provide no facts to support this.

"Now lets get back to this courtroom scenario, when the defendant does not rebutt the unproved assumptions and presumptions. Then according to the laws of procedure in an equity court your failure to rebutt them must mean what???"

You mention later about the defendant pointing out there is "no evidence for the plaintiff", so there has been a rebuttal of the assumptions and presumptions. Then you claim there are "laws of procedure in an equity court". You provide no evidence of any rules anywhere for a contract dispute in an "equity court" nor the rules of criminal procedure in an "equity court".

I'll finish below, when you do an edit the previous posts do not appear on the page.

[Marc Stevens]

Criminal proceedings in equity? Again, no evidence.

The clean hands doctrine applies to equity proceedings. This requires the existence of facts to support allegations, not just baseless accusations in the hope the defendant is ignorant of the rule of presumptions.

Under the terms of contract law, there must be a meeting of the minds and consideration. A failure to rebut a presumption one is not aware of is not a meeting of the minds. Also, where is the consideration?

"So when you have offer and acceptance...isn't that a contract??" No, a contract is and offer, a meeting of the minds (full disclosure) acceptance and consideration.

"And they can agree to waive remedy and provisions of law anytime they want." No, standing may not be waived by the parties: "Lack of standing cannot be waived." In re Ancillary Adversary Proceeding Questions, 89 S.W.3d 460.

"Doesn't that supersede any provisions required of formal law and procedure?.....Yes?....No?," No, see above.
"
"YES!!.....Because both the parties are in agreement!!" Again, wrong: "Lack of standing cannot be waived."

"And they can agree to waive remedy and provisions of law anytime they want." Again, they may agree to waive standing, but that doesn't "supersede" any required law or procedure: "Lack of standing cannot be waived."

"He found the defendant guilty because he allowed and agreed the he should be found guilty.....he volunteered." Again, see above. the defendant has it explained that if he doesn't appear a warrant for his arrest and imprisonment will issue, he only "volunteered" to avoid getting killed.

"After all...haven't you heard everyone in prison is there because they volunteered.....of their own free will?" I've also heard republicans want small, non-intrusive government.

"If you volunteered....doesn't that mean you had a contract??" Only if there was an offer of contract (ordered to appear in court probably doesn't count), a meeting of the minds (full disclosure), a freely given acceptance and consideration.

"Then....WHAT'S THAT GOT TO DO WITH LAW???" Nothing, the whole thing has no factual basis. At no time is there full disclosure. On that alone there is no contract, even in legal land.

"The end result was there was no evidence brought forward to rebutt the presumptions." Evidence is not required to be brought forward when you ask for the facts to be disclosed. Also, even equity jurisdiction requires (may not be waived) a justiciable case between true adversaries: “courts must look behind names that symbolize the parties to determine whether a justiciable case or controversy is presented.” State v. CNA Ins. Companies, 779 A.2d 662 (Vt 2001) [quoting United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 337 U.S. 426 (1949)].

"If the defense didn't rebutt the presumptions.....did the plaintiff have a duty to bring evidence to the case???" No, the plaintiff is under no "duty" to bring evidence of a case, but there are 2 important points here. 1. The plaintiff's counsel DOES have such a duty as an officer of the court. 2. the court has the "duty" to only hear cases and ensure the complaint meets the minimum legal requirements.

"Because they only have to bring evidence if the defendant rebutts the presumptions." Not true, I don't have the citation off the top of my head, I mentioned it on the show before though, the complaint must have a statement of facts to support the allegations.

"It has to do with what is the intent of the parties here...if there's no evidence...we can't rule on evidence...so it's not a law case. It's a case in equity...." A case in equity is not "equity" because of a lack of evidence. If you think this is correct, you should cite some evidence. As far as I know, equity is where there is a violation of a legal right for which the law does not provide a remedy. The case and controversy clauses always include both "law and equity".

The rest of what you wrote appears to be pure opinion. The judges rule against people because that is their nature. The nature of the "job" is violent domination under the guise of administering justice. That I can prove very easily: you're ORDERED to appear under threat of death (so-called "warrant") while their CONstitution has the words "Justice in all cases shall be administered openly..." Ariz. CONstitution article II sec. 11.

Even if you could prove what you wrote is true, it would still mean the same thing: these people called "government" do not follow their own rules, it's all PR.

Marc

[eye2i2hear]

I SWEAR... I didn't hack marc's account and post that last post under his name!

(that's gotta be a record post length for marc, no?!?)

[NonEntity]

Whutz with the icon, dude? Is that a hair ball your cat just upchucked, or what?

- NonE

(If you can't say something nice, at least be creative!) :wacky:

[eye2i2hear]

NonEntity Wrote:Whutz with the icon, dude? Is that a hair ball your cat just upchucked, or what?
(If you can't say something nice, at least be creative!) :wacky:

[DeNiro hat on here] You talkin' to me? You talkin' TO ME? [/Roberto hat off]

Now see here, dude.

(optionally: see here2)

[when is an avatar like a name... like where some cultures seek to have names that reveal something?]