If you
haven’t had a chance to listen to the previous audios or had a chance to read
the previous blogs on Ucadia, and this is the first time that you have come to
this blog and these audios, I hope you take the time at the very least to read
the blogs for the last couple of weeks and listen to the last few audios.
First off, I will be mentioning some of the
material of last week. Before I get into
that, the reason that I have chosen the topic this week of Enough is Enough, Bringing
Unjust Matters to a Close, is that for many who have encountered injustice
when they have faced the courts, for many that have seen the evil underbelly of
a system that pretends to be law, the process that you may have gone through, even just
to extricate and clear yourself of what may have been thrown against you can be
a trial of months, sometimes years and an experience that is life-searing, an
experience that changes your life in many cases forever.
In
that process and in that trial given that there is a huge amount of information
out there; and I must say the white noise and the hysteria and screeching has
never been greater. I have to tell you
that in terms of Ucadia people’s negativity has never been more absurd. People are not reading, but throwing whatever
they can at it. Some might say, “Oh, it’s Masonic imaging. Or, it’s false information. Or it’s disinformation.” There is this desperation out there that
people do not read, they do not listen, they do not think. Why would that be?
Two
weeks ago we outlined 10 points of relief and 10 facts when we move forward and
consider any matter that we find ourselves before the courts. They were straight forward and they were
clear. The first was the fact that
truth, an obvious truth, often takes time and when we do reveal the truth, it
hurts. The second fact was that those people
who work as judges, magistrates, prosecutors, attorneys and sheriffs by
definition are not evil people. Put
them in the system and they absolutely work for the system. But, when we talk about these things we said
we absolutely are focusing on the broken system and not on the people. The third fact was that the system is
broken. Any system that puts millions
of people in prison and there are more people in prison in America today
that the whole rest of the world combined.
If that isn’t broken I don’t know what is.
The
fourth fact we said that the people that run the system know it’s broken. Of course the attorneys know it’s broken, the
judges and magistrates know it’s broken.
But their excuses are no different than those people who were rounded up
after WWII who worked in Auschwitz and other
places of horror. “I was just following orders; I was just doing my job.” Two weeks ago the fifth fact we said was
that the courts are for-profit businesses; they are corporations no different
than your local bank or your local real estate agent. That is an absolute fact that is easily
supported when one goes and sees that as businesses they are registered as
businesses. In some places it’s more
transparent that they are registered businesses. In Australia, for example, you can go
and find the courts are registered businesses through the ABN system. In other
places it’s a little more difficult.
But, they are all for-profit corporations now and they are not original
courts. That is an absolute fact.
The
seventh fact we said two weeks ago was that the main weapons for the courts to
control you are through fear and intimidation, through imaging as a key
part. Tonight when we speak of Enough is Enough, bringing unjust matters to a
close you will just how strong that imaging is. When we talk about that final revelation of
what we are dealing with. The eighth
fact we said is the secondary weapon courts are promoting is your incompetence
and your dishonor. They want you to argue
and you will see in a moment why argument is their “get out of trouble card”
when you get up and you are belligerent.
They want you to be belligerent and that is why they have had so many
people out there promoting your going in and fighting and denying. They want you to be belligerent as that gives
them their opportunity to go through.
The
ninth fact we said is the courts know they are committing fraud; they know
this. They will do anything to maintain the
veil of public ignorance which is why I believe that the hysteria, the
disinformation, the screaming at the moment out there has never been more
shrill. We are at the cusp of realizing
exactly what it is, who we are and how to conduct ourselves. The tenth is that as the courts are for
profit businesses and create case numbers and a legal person of unlimited
liability which is an absurdity and because they are creating that and doing
that, they rarely, if ever, back down.
They will fight to keep their money, their business, to keep the case
alive.
Those
are the 10 facts we listed and then we went through the 10 points of relief. Then last week, the topic was Ending the Last Curse of the Legal
Pirates. We asked ourselves some
very, very simple questions. These were
questions that, because people bog us down with so many facts and so much
information and because it all seems so complex and because people keep up off
balance, whether we are in court or we are trying to find a solution. We miss the most obvious of truths and the
first is that we have the absolute right to ask the question in any court we go
to: “Will you be hearing this matter
without prejudice?” There is no court in any country in the world, if
the answer is in the negative, “No, I am
not going to hear this matter without prejudice,” that is then a true
court. By refusal to answer, by
obfuscation, by delay, by trickery, if you are brought before a place that has
the name ‘court’ on it somewhere and the man or woman in front of you refuses
to hear the matter without prejudice, then that is abuse of power. That is an action that they cannot
justify. Once they refuse to hear a
matter without prejudice, it cannot be a court, it is an inquisition. It is torture. It is unjust.
They know it, you know it and anyone who hears such an admission knows
it as well.
The
last veil is the impression that when you are brought before these courts that
there is some semblance of justice. When
they refuse to hear the matter without prejudice there is no justice, there is
no court, and there is no law. The
second question we have if they say “yes” to hearing the matter without
prejudice, is to say, “Can I have your
oath on that?” Bind them to their oath and get them to
promise, not just to say they are going to hear the matter without prejudice,
but bound them to an oath as the fiduciary.
If they say “yes” there should be no objections. You are not asking questions that are
out-of-bounds.
We
said this last week is that bias in their own procedures is what causes a case
to be withdrawn or dropped. Bias is one
of the fundamental errors and they cannot adjudicate a matter in any order or
any sentence derived from that will be null and void on the fact of the defect
of bias. So, they cannot proceed with
bias where it is clear that the issue of bias has been brought up. If they refuse to give an oath, they are
proceeding without an oath, then they are breaking their own procedures and
that is failure of due process. The
third question we raised and we are modifying this slightly in the conversation
tonight was “Do you have an interest, do
you have any financial interest in this matter?”
Know
that the courts are a business and that the magistrate or judge is an
independent contractor who picks up that piece of business and has a financial
interest.
Tonight
we will bring all that into context about how we might conduct ourselves to
bring such matters to a close. That is
why I raise the topic tonight of Enough
is Enough. There are a million
things that I want to work on in Ucadia.
I have been working on the sacred texts of Tara, on the second book of
Tara and the restoration of the old parables, the first stories 2600 years ago
that became the foundation of western law and spread across through China, through Asia and America. That is what I want to be working on. I want to be working on Bibliographe. I want to be working on the administrative
and fiduciary canons, finishing what I set out to do. I don’t want to be going back and having to
deal with what people are raising when they say they go to court and the courts
are willfully biased, have unclean hands and fail to follow their own
procedures. I don’t want to hear that is the reality.
Restore the Law, Heal the Law not Injure the Law
I am
not here to attack a system, injure the law; I am here to do whatever I can to
restore the law. I have had enough as
you have. I have had enough of hearing this incompetence. I have had enough of the disinformation
agents that trick people and hide the truth from people and send them down
false rabbit trails. I’ve had
enough. Before we get into the key
revelations of tonight, let me say this, and I have said this a few times. But, let me say this so that it is absolutely
clear: the last refuge of the coward, the traitor, the assassin is to wrap
themselves in the flag and say that what they did was for national security,
what they did was for justice. That
is, and I’m sure you would all agree, absolute horse shit. It’s crap.
Why do I say that, before we continue?
Because it is traditionally the shrill of those exposed as frauds,
pirates, criminals to argue that it is we who are causing the injury and by
exposing it we are the ones committing the crime.
They
did this the other day when the extent of the unlawful monitoring that is
occurring across the world into people’s private lives was exposed. They are trolling for massive amounts of
information and instead of addressing the issue of government over–reach, once
again they went after the ones who revealed it, that they had broken the laws,
that they had breached national security and jeopardized the safety of the
country. Let’s put that in context. Here we have this global battle going on and
we hear in the media that there are groups around the world that are
threatening the stability of societies with cyber wars and all of a sudden we
discover the one causing the most damage out there are agencies within the
United States. Instead of admitting what
they have done, that they are saying that this revelation ‘weakens’ our
country. That is mind-numbing. It is absolute insanity but they think that
they can get away with it.
For
twenty-eight
years of researching and writing Ucadia and the almost 1,000,000
pages associated with the websites, is to present a comprehensive,
detailed and
complete model of society, of law, of tools which creates the ability to
restore the law and to heal society and to help society and to transform
this
madness. If only the nihilists and
people affected with mind virus would wake up.
No one can accuse Ucadia or me or being anti-social, someone trying to
walk around the law. We have designed
and have taken years to do this, the criminal code. We have processed
dozens of different law
statutes in history to present a way of dealing with criminal matters.
We did this with the civil code. We did this with the judicial code.
The
canons on the website www.one-heaven.org
take the maxims of law from the beginning of society and bring them together in
one form. No rational, sensible man or
woman could argue that this is about perverting the courts of justice. It’s the opposite; it’s restoring the
law. Enough
is enough! Stop putting people in
jail for profit. Stop making money off
crime. Stop attacking your own people
and stop freeing people who murder and hurt people. Stop putting the people who have no violence
in prison. It’s got to stop! Stop destroying your own countries and stop
being traitors to your own flag. Stop
being cowards, above all, and stand up and believe in something, anything in
your background and your life. If you
ever believed in law, if you ever believed in something better, then for
goodness’ sakes stop being a coward and pretending that you have no ability and
you can’t do anything about the system, that you are just doing your job.
The origins of the present Court processes
What
can we do when we are faced with going to magistrate’s court, district court or
any of their corporate businesses masquerading as courts? Let’s go back to a topic we covered a few
weeks ago. We have covered this, in fact
quite some time ago when we discussed the nature of writs. It is how cases used to be brought forward
and how justice used to work. It is how
the laws that are still on the books work today. If you think about a case as opposed to how
it is presented to you now, if you were to read Lord Blackstone’s Commentaries
on the laws of England, a seminal work that summarizes the way the law was by
the end of the 18th century.
What you see was a clear set of processes. I am not arguing that the processes were
necessarily fair, even then. But there
was clearly a set of processes.
The
first thing that brought about a cause, an action in law, was that some
information regarding an unlawful act was brought, or a formal complaint was
brought. One of those two things
occurred. Then if you look at the
procedure under Blackstone, there was an examination. There may have been an
arrest if there was someone in the act of committing an offense. It could be that we had information or we
were led to believe that someone was acting unlawfully, so an arrest was made
based on that information. Or, someone
complained that they saw someone commit an act. One of those two ways. Then there was an examination of that
evidence. If the evidence before a jury,
a grand jury, appeared to warrant the matter to proceed then a bill was
issued. Actually that was 19th
century. Under Blackstone it was called
an Original Writ. In America it was
called a bill. In England it was
called an original writ or a writ original.
That is the instrument that began the process.
By the 19th century, once the Bank
of England had gained control of the British Empire
by bankrupting it, we saw the
introduction of the modern system of justice that we see today. It is summary justice, streamlined justice
where the long-winded processes of the 18th century were
condensed
to speed up justice and make it more efficient. After the Bank of
England had introduced centralized records to treat people as commercial
Admiralty goods under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration
Acts of 1836 and then in 1837, (plus the British Vessel Registration Act of 1845) the revision of the courts began with an act called the Indictable Offenses Act of 1848 under
Victoria, C42.
What
the Indictable Offenses Act did was it brought the laws in Britain under a similar design as the laws of America, but
streamlined them. So, again, if there
was information now it became a charge or a complaint and that would be brought
before a grand jury. Then a bill of
indictment would be issued and forms were prescribed that had to be
followed. If those forms were not used,
not valid, if the form under the statute of a valid warrant was not followed,
then it was not a valid warrant. One of
those forms was the Certificate of Indictment being found. That is to say, if a true indictment was
issued from a grand jury after a complaint was lodged—think of that: complaint, the action of the grand jury, bill
of indictment and then a certificate of indictment. So a number of steps had to be in place for
the matter to move forward.
What
the Indictable Offenses Act and its amendment in 1857 introduced at this point was one form of relief
that remains in place both within the United States as it does in every
location that still derives the essence of its law from this system, from this
invention of this system of summary justice from 1848. From 1857 and Summary Jurisdiction Act 1857 (c.43) it
is the concept of ‘frivolous.’ If there was a frivolous action
brought,
then the one accused had the right to immediately appeal to a higher
court on
an Affidavit of Facts for a rule if the magistrate or judge upon
identifying it
as being frivolous did not discharge the matter. So, it introduced a
number of points. It said while we streamline this method and
we have eradicated the concept of original writ, it is now fully
commercial in
the form of a bill, if the charges or
complaint in this process were frivolous, then you could appeal to the
higher
court on an affidavit of facts for an immediate ruling to have the
matter
discharged. You could immediately change
to a different venue if the magistrate or judge refused to act and
dismiss the
matter.
I’ll
get to the key point in a moment; I am just giving you the background. People are out there and making claims and
saying all kinds of things, recommending you ‘click your heels’, write this
30-page document, or whatever they are doing, one of the frequent things that
are missed include the fact that there is documentary evidence, there is
statutes, codes, ordinances, judicial procedures and other guidelines that you
can source and refer to as evidence of a magistrate or judge or court failing
their own rules.
After
1848 and 1857 we had the creation of the first private "for business" court in the British Empire with the Supreme Court Act of 1873.
As a brief aside, whenever you hear the phrase "reserve my rights",
this is the date and implies you wish to be heard in a public forum, not
private i.e. prior to 1873. It still puts you under Summary
Jurisdiction, but not under the private "for profit" courts.
Then we had a major update
which was in 1879 in the Summary Jurisdiction Act c.49 and this key act which is
more than 64 pages long and is the longest of all the Summary Jurisdiction Acts
ever created under the British law in the 19th century, is where the
entire system was made commercial. Again
in 1879 it streamlined itself by allowing some of the previous requirements
such as the grand jury step to be obviated and in 1881 in the SummaryJurisdiction Process Act it took it a step further to the modern system where,
providing judges were able to produce a signed endorsement in the proper
prescribed form where under oath they stated they were satisfied that there was
sufficient prima facie evidence that
this was enough to proceed. What did
that mean, exactly? The prima facie evidence, and what that
means, is a sworn complaint. If the
court had seen a sworn complaint, a sworn affidavit, therefore prima facie and if the court itself then
had sworn in the creation of the warrant or the creation of the summons and
produced a signed endorsement to that fact, then they could move ahead and the
earlier streamlined system no longer needed to be followed.
Why is this history relevant to our problems today?
So
again,
this was another short cut in their system? Why is this relevant
today? It’s relevant for a number of reasons. As we said last week in
the questions, “Will you be hearing this matter without
prejudice? Yes? Can I have your oath on that?” The fact also is that we know magistrates and
judges are acting as independent contractors under the corporate system. We know that everything I have just
described is the underpinning of their legal system. But, their legal system now is run by
corporations. And as corporations we
know the following: we know, for
example, that they do not provide sworn affidavits of complaint as prima facie evidence before they
proceed. And, instead they produce
fraudulent documents in some jurisdictions of fictitious persons as unsworn
statements claiming them to be a ‘complaint.’
I saw
this the other day in a place called the Northern
Territory in northern Australia. There is a matter where a fellow who has been
working on material with Ucadia in regards to the indigenous has been singled
out by the system because where he lives there is a group of corrupt officials
who have seized land and unlawfully sold it to developers. They have taken the land contrary to the
laws of Australia,
so this is an example of absolute and complete corruption. They have
seized the land, unlawfully
conveyed it and they are making money with developers. They see this
man as a threat. And so they have loaded him up with a series
of charges. Their most recent example
was to produce a fictitious complaint of a person that does not exist in
order
to pretend that they have followed their own processes because they
initially
laid charges without a complaint. This
is the point when you go to court and the imaging when you go to court,
particularly the magistrate’s court, and there are two ways that the
magistrate’s court tricks people into jurisdiction.
The
first is purely paper. As a corporation
and I have said this week after week, as a corporation they cannot issue bills;
they can only issue invoices. They
cannot issue writs, they can only issue orders. And they certainly cannot produce a signed
and sworn complaint. What they do is
they create the illusion of that. They
come to you as the prosecutor and you are the defendant as they claim. In the absence of a defense and of a
counter-argument, their paper claim stands and they move forward on that. If you don’t defend, you don’t argue, you
accept and on they go. The second is in
the form of argument. People go to
court, they stand up and they say they are ‘a man,’ ‘a living man,’ or this or
that and they negate the paper claim.
What they then do is through argument, the court as the umpire and the
court is locked in as the umpire, and by arguing you agree there is a
conflict. If there is evidence of a
conflict they can move forward.
What
people have been tricked into arguing and therefore proving clearly that if
‘there is smoke, there is fire,’ and you move forward. Worse than that, we get locked into the role
of the defendant. If you are the
defendant under their system of summary justice, you are there to lose. There are very, very few ways a defendant can
defeat an action against them. If you
are a defendant by their system, by default, in most cases you are going to
lose. So what do we do and what does
this mean? Remember, I said to you that
one of the things that we are brought up and tricked into believing
particularly when we go to court is the automatic assumption that we are the
defendant. Just because someone has
brought a complaint, just because someone has brought an argument doesn’t mean
it is true.
In the
case of Ucadia what we say within the laws of Ucadia as listed on One Heaven is that there is an obligation on all of us in
honor to admit our faults. If law was
just, then people would be encouraged to admit their transgressions and there
would be healing through that process.
You wouldn’t have all this commercial rubbish around it and we would address the underlying transgression. However, under their
system, the fact that someone has come to you and made an accusation doesn’t
necessarily make it so. But we assume
the role of defendant. We are image trained to believe the role of defendant.
Do you have a right to counter the argument?
In a
civil case we are more open to that. If
someone makes a claim against us we say, “No,” a lodge a counter claim. So under the counter claim argument we are
more open to seeing ourselves as the Plaintiff and the prosecutor. But, in criminal matters we are image trained
to automatically assume that we come forward as a defendant and we are
‘defending’ the action brought forward.
I tell you now, if you move forward on the assumption that you are the
defendant, then in 99% of the cases you are going to lose in that role. But, if the party that has brought forward a
series of claims that are frivolous under their own rules, a failure of due
process under their own rules or deficient under their own rules, then it is you who are the prosecutor. You are the prosecutor; they are NOT the
prosecutor.
Unless
you bring the matter to a close effectively as the prosecutor, then the matter
is going to keep going on and on; there will be another magistrate, followed by
another magistrate, another prosecutor, followed by another prosecutor and you
may be stuck in this twilight zone for months or years. Once they have started a case they do not
stop a case. Rarely do they ever
withdraw, so unless you bring it to a close they are going to keep it open
hoping that at some point you are going to make a mistake. That is how they are.
What
do I mean by saying that you are the prosecutor? Let’s go back to what that affidavit really
means and what your affidavit really needs to demonstrate if it can be justly
argued that this is the case. Say in
the case in the Northern Territory of Australia where it is a classic example
of blatant corruption, of conspiracy, of contempt and of breaching dozens of
their own laws, it is outright, open corruption. Of course, in Australia
unfortunately we are
bereft of any oversight. They are
allowed to get away with this and virtually no one holds them to
account. They are out of control. In that case what the party that is
under
attack and cannot move forward in the current matter needs to do is to
consider
preparing their own case. Then instead
of their being the defendant they are the Plaintiff and they are the one
bringing the complaint.
This
is back to the original form of what a true memorandum of complaint is. It is
back to the original form of true memorandum and complaint. How do you do that? Before we get to dealing with it within the
court itself, let’s talk about the elements that comprise an effective
Memorandum. First off, let’s talk about
the affidavit which is the ‘carrier pigeon.’
It is the instrument that brings the memorandum forward. I am sure as many of you know; there is a lot
of disinformation that has been out there.
It is to encourage people to produce nonsensical forms into the court
that automatically render our actions frivolous, or give them justification to
order a psych evaluation and that is why they promote those kind of sociopathic
disinformation agents, whether it is agents using mathematical language or
other absurdities.
Even
though this is a private court, a private business, they make it very clear
that the only form(s) that they accept must comply in the design that they
state. Otherwise they will not recognize
it and they cannot rule on it. that
means that the form of affidavit needs to be in the form that their
jurisdiction recognizes. One of the
tricks they do is how the affidavit looks in the Northern Territory of
Australia will be different in New South Wales,
different in Victoria, different in Texas, different in Canada,
different in Alberta, different in England and different in New Zealand. It will be different
in all the different places all over the world.
Your Affidavit and Memorandum of Complaint
Now,
all you want is an affidavit that complies in form (of your local area) which
then you annex what will be your memorandum.
Bear in mind that before you even get to that point, another trick that
we have raised before and that is to keep in mind that unless you have
appointed or identified your right to submit a memorandum and you can certainly
submit one in propria persona, but
unless you have established that role, the court may deny your right to
submit
documents because they say you do not have the power of attorney.
Think about this: the clerk of the court is like the teller at
the bank. At the bank they say that you
have no right to do business unless you are registered with that bank
with the
right to do business. That is really the
power of attorney and the role of the agent.
So,
assuming that you have that already in place, the first document you will
prepare is a one-page affidavit.
Why? So that nothing on that
document is contrary to their own law and nothing on that front page document
is contradictory and a judge or magistrate can rule on the accuracy of that
one-page document in a fraction of a second. There can be no argument
whatsoever that they couldn’t view that single page and merely conclude that it
comports to their rules and their regulations.
What is the purpose of that one-page affidavit? Remember, it is a ‘carrier pigeon’ that
brings in the Memorandum of Complaint that summarizes your position as the
prosecutor. You don’t EVER use the word,
Prosecutor; you never, ever use the word that you are the Prosecutor. You don’t need to.
Firstly
the Memorandum of Complaint reverses the role.
You don’t put yourself as the defendant; you put yourself as the
Plaintiff. The first thing that the
memorandum must state, the very first thing, is by their own laws what are the
charges that imply frivolous action, failure to establish subject matter jurisdiction
and those relevant references to their own statutes and rules that negate the
complaint? That is the very first thing
that you must list, beginning with the references that it is frivolous. Thereafter the actual real references can
demonstrate their failure to produce a valid complaint and the wording must
describe the errors exactly that they failed to do.
That
front page of the Memorandum of Complaint and those charges is ultimately what
the magistrate will need to rule on in order to dismiss the matter ‘with
prejudice.’ There might be several
matters which might bring the Memorandum to two pages. This is not about throwing in the kitchen
sink. Please don’t put on there that
they are ‘breaching the constitution,’ that they are doing ‘x, y, z’; keep it
relevant. Keep it relevant and bear in
mind that this is for a particular court within its own purview. That court is not going to rule on the United
Nations, that court is not going to quote the Bible. So, please don’t be silly about your Memorandum
of Complaint. Just keep the issues of
breach relevant to the matter at hand.
If there is no breach, you cannot do this. If there are breaches you can do this.
The
first page is really the ‘charge sheet’ of the Memorandum and is really the title,
Memorandum of Complaint and the charges.
After that is a brief Statement of Fact. The brief Statement of Fact is fact(s) and
it’s not conjecture; it’s not opinion or questions. It is not subjectivity and it’s not
accusations. It is fact: this happened,
this happened, I did this, they did this, I did this, and they did this. This
is what this is and this is what this is. It’s all facts and not
subject to
interpretation, debate or dispute as it is clearly ordered. I hope that
is crystal clear to you. It is the Statement of Fact. Please do not
write the Statement of Fact as
conjecture, opinion, or questions. Those
things follow the list of charges on the charge sheet.
Then,
following the Statement of Facts is the Affidavit. The Affidavit of Complaint is the sworn statement
of the complaint; it is your sworn statement.
It is a statement of you stating the facts. It is consistent with the summary of facts,
under oath, that validate the merit of this complaint. Then if there are any exhibits thereafter
they are annexed in the end in the numbered fashion that match the referencing
to the exhibits in either the sworn Affidavit or the Statement of Fact. That is the completion of the Memorandum of
Complaint.
The
opening page is the Memorandum of Complaint which include the summary of
charges and the references showing exactly where they come from, the Statement
of Fact, the sworn Affidavit of Complaint, and then in sequential order any
annexed exhibits. Then you bind that up
and the entire Memorandum of Complaint is annexed in full to the ‘carrier
pigeon’ Affidavit. That Memorandum of
Complaint is a private document. It
is a private document of which a magistrate or judge has no right to judge the
validity under their own rules regarding the details and form of the Memorandum
of Complaint. They can certainly review
the substance of it, but they have no right to rule on its form.
Why do
we do that? Why do we have only a one
page ‘carrier pigeon’ Affidavit in their form, with the annexation of the
private Memorandum of Complaint annexed in full to it? Why do we do that? We do that because in so many parts of the
world now because courts are private corporations and private businesses, they
are constantly revising their own procedures to the point that they are so corrupt
and so bereft of justice that they can make large, sweeping statements as they
have done in many, many places where they refuse to allow certain instruments
and documents to be presented. They
will refuse to accept documents and makes it virtually impossible for you to
present a valid case because the private procedures of these businesses called
courts now won’t entertain such action.
That is why you do the Memorandum of Complaint as a private document. The private Memorandum of Complaint is annexed
in full to the public Affidavit. I hope
what I have just said is clear; there are numerous examples out there. If it is not clear, you go back and re-read
this and re-listen to what I have just said.
It should be crystal clear with all the steps we have just gone through.
Enough is Enough
Back
to bringing unjust matters to a close and Enough
is Enough. How do this work? Well, you go down to the court with your
Letter of Precipae on top which directs the clerk of the court to have this
Affidavit with its annexed documents (Memorandum of Complaint, Statement of
Fact, Affidavit of Complaint, and annexed exhibits) entered onto the record and
you get it time stamped. You will have a
time stamped copy for your records and they will keep a time stamped copy. They put the original into the record.
When
you front up to the matter and you are in the courtroom for the hearing the
first question you ask is, “Will you be
hearing this matter without prejudice? Yes, of course? Do I have your oath on
that? Yes? Is my Affidavit on your
record for this matter?” Then you
wait. They will answer “yes” or “no.” Then you say if it
is not
there that you submitted it to the clerk and I have a copy, so let me
produce it and provide you with this copy. (Note: you will need copies
for the magistrate,
their ‘prosecutor’, and the clerk as well as your own copy). “Let me
hand this to you (or have the bailiff hand it to them).” Remember they are only ruling on one thing
and it’s the single page ‘carrier pigeon’ affidavit. They have no right to rule on anything else.
So,
that one page Affidavit that they are ruling on is accompanied by the whole
private document which includes the Memorandum of Complaint, the Statement of
Facts, the Affidavit of Complaint and the annexed exhibits. They are only ruling on the first page which
is the ‘carrier pigeon’ Affidavit. Then
you say, “Is there any reason that you
can see why this cannot be entered into the record now, your honor?” If the
magistrate obstructs you, that is an immediate example of obstruction in which
case you request the matter to be held (stayed) subject to an appeal to a
higher court. You will have the matter
switched to a higher court and that is your right.
As I
said before, that is built into their rules. You apply to the higher court with an Affidavit of Fact for a ruling to
have the matter heard as the magistrate has refused to follow his/her own
procedure. The magistrate said (s)he
would hear the matter without prejudice and is now being prejudicial. If the magistrate accepts this on the record
you shut up and say nothing. If they say yes that it is on the record then
you say, “I move to have the matter
dismissed with extreme prejudice on the basis of …..(round off the relevant
charges in your Memorandum of Complaint Charge sheet as has been described).” That is it.
The
magistrate will rule on the matters that you listed clearly in your affidavit
and the matter is dismissed with extreme prejudice. If the magistrates fail to do this, refuses
to do that, you call the matter for an immediate halt subject to an Affidavit
of Fact appealing to the higher court, which is a higher business. It is like appealing to the ‘head
office.’ You are telling the head
office that the magistrate has ‘stuffed up’ and you are going to appeal to the
higher court to have the matter heard because the magistrate is clearly biased
and if he/she has given an oath, has perjured him/herself.
What
if
the magistrate wants to argue with you? What if the magistrate wants to be ‘semantic’ with you? You don’t need
to have an argument. If the magistrate refused to act without
prejudice you move for the matter to be shut down and moved to the
higher court
because you cannot get justice at that level.
That court the magistrate is in represents the magistrate court. It
doesn’t matter if you get a different
magistrate. If that court cannot hear
the matter fairly, that magistrate represents the chief magistrate. It
means that court is not going to give you
justice and you have the right to appeal to a higher court. Of course
you have that right; it’s built
into their law. Their whole edifice is
based on them being courts of law.
It’s
not for them accept; if they refuse, you immediately appeal and you say, “On and for the record you have refused to
follow your own laws and rules and whatever sentence you do today will be
clearly null and void and there will be an immediate appeal at the end to the
supreme court (if you are in magistrate’s court) on an Affidavit of Fact for an
immediate ruling.” They know you can
do this; you know you can do this. It’s
time to bring unjust matters to a close.
Let’s
summarize what we have said in this audio bearing in mind it is not legal advice, nor in anyway intended to be legal advice. Instead, we are covering very, very
important issues of legal history that we are bringing here. If you do not take the bull by the horns and bring the matter to a
close, it will not close. We have been
image trained to be on the defensive. We do not see ourselves really in the role of being the protector of our
estate. But no one can come and shake us
down and use our name to rack up charges just because they want to make money
off things. You need to prepare yourself
for that. Just as they try to use what
they claim is our dishonor against us, we can do exactly the same for them.
One
final point: as I said last week and the
week before, and as I have been saying now on a regular basis: the last veil of the pirates is the popular
belief that they represent the law and that these are courts. If their reaction in the end is to break all
their laws, that there is no law and they are so unjust and they refuse to
follow their own procedures, then keep in mind it is the last acts of the end
of the pirates. Even though some may
have relief, some may find as in the case in the Northern Territory of
Australia that there is no law. Whatever
you do, whatever action you do, plays an integral part in bringing this to a
close.
Enough
is Enough and it’s time to choose whether we are prepared to stand or not. I hope you find this important insight into
not simply being imaged into being the role of the defendant helpful and
useful. Please be safe and please be
well. Until we speak again, thank you
and good night.
No comments:
Post a Comment