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.