Eustace Mullins: Surviving the Court System

[PatColo]

I really enjoyed this Eustace Mullins speech on representing yourself in court. From Aug 2000, speech recorded in Canada who's courts operate very similarly to the US. Mullins had been suing lawyers and alphabet agencies for 5 decades, and winning. He talks about how the courts are basically Masonic temples, Talmudic law was rolled out about 1900 (end of part 6) which was designed to enable the courts to have their way with people... what's so great about this speech is how funny Mullins is! What an American treasure- "most dangerous man in America" according to J. Edgar Hoover. Watch part 1 and see if it grabs you-


p1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIYoCag5Ej0&feature=related

p2
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=70DA7C03A248FC6B&playnext=1&v=Jq5tGYfDOjY

p3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEd3l1d-qZI&feature=related

p4
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=70DA7C03A248FC6B&playnext=1&v=aEbTyBUQnk4

p5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yuBF2e2Fh4&feature=related

p6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I05w4FHF2hY&feature=related

p7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfSeFMFLQ5s&feature=related

p8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0o_n-QYN2jQ&feature=related

p9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8s9b5vkZ38&feature=related

p10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTcxouhDcus&feature=related

p11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcT31QBVeSE

[palani]

I really enjoyed this Eustace Mullins speech on representing yourself in court.

I dislike dealing with inferiors.

The court needs you to either be represented or to represent yourself. If you show up without attorney they throw a "pro se" label on you. They do this because it is necessary for them to do this. This label drops you from the level of a principal to that of an agent. The judge is an agent. The prosecutor is an agent. Everyone in court is an agent. Should you elect to be a principal rather than your own agent you could insist upon conducting business with other principals (except of course when there are NO principals).

[PatColo]

I really enjoyed this Eustace Mullins speech on representing yourself in court.

I dislike dealing with inferiors.

The court needs you to either be represented or to represent yourself. If you show up without attorney they throw a "pro se" label on you. They do this because it is necessary for them to do this. This label drops you from the level of a principal to that of an agent. The judge is an agent. The prosecutor is an agent. Everyone in court is an agent. Should you elect to be a principal rather than your own agent you could insist upon conducting business with other principals (except of course when there are NO principals).

Somewhere in the last 2-3 youtube segments, where there's Q&A, Mullins talks about alternatives to pro se designation. One of them, and I forget the Latin name, but it meant roughly "citizen with first-hand knowledge of the facts"... you'll have to watch to find that part. Mullins also dismisses the saying, "those who represent themselves have a fool for a lawyer", saying it's a meme propagated by the masonic fraternity/courts, because in fact your lawyer, the opposing lawyer & the judge are all conspiring together to give you the screwing of your life. He amends it to say, "those who hire a lawyer are fools".

I'm not advocating watching this video and then running out filing lawsuites, going pro se etc, it's a frightful thought all considered, and Mullins, while "not a lawyer" obviously had an exceptional mind and was a talented researcher and writer. His talk above is great in how he deconstructs our court system and demystifies it in such layman's terms.

There's also a question about citing U.C.C. in the (Canadian) courts, and Mullins responded positively, saying you cite whatever's available to you, it's a battle after all.

[Awoke]

I'm just posting for later viewing.

[Book]

Mullins also dismisses the saying, "those who represent themselves have a fool for a lawyer", saying it's a meme propagated by the masonic fraternity/courts, because in fact your lawyer, the opposing lawyer & the judge are all conspiring together to give you the screwing of your life. He amends it to say, "those who hire a lawyer are fools".
[/size]



"pro se" is understood by the jew judge and jew lawyers as "uppity goyim target". Talmud tells them stick together and gang up on him.

:oo-->

[palani]

Here is the 'Lectric Law Libraries definition for "pro se". Note definition no. (2).


PRO SE
Lat. "for himself" "on one's own behalf" A person who represents himself in court

alone without the help of a lawyer is said to appear pro se. (2) Lat. for you lose. also pro per

I believe I would carry a copy of this definition in with me and the first time "pro se" is mentioned drag it out and ask "if a loss is meant by the use the phrase then why is my presence necessary here?"

[Desolation LineTrimmer]

Mullins is the epitome of crank. Entertaining speaker though, although the crankiness gets in the way.

[Twisted Titan]

Post for later veiwing

[Hatha Sunahara]

There are two other threads here at GSUS that are related in that they focus on the corruption of the legal system in the US. Mullins describes the origin and character of our legal system.

Mamboni has a thread that relates here:

http://gold-silver.us/forum/general-discussion/armstrong%27s-latest-a-must-read!-%27nice-try-but-no-cigar!%27/

This thread is about Martin Armstrong's latest essay, where he describes in his own words the corruption of the legal system.

There is another thread here on GSUS that has a link to the site at http://www.intmensorg.info/.

I found a link there to a piece on Corrupt USA Courts:

http://www.intmensorg.info/corruptusacourts.htm

Is it my imagination, or is there a current moving people to question the legitimacy of the legal system?

The reference to Blackstone by Mullins is explained in the intmensorg article. The law has to be interpreted as if it were from God, so people will obey it. They wouldn't obey laws made to benefit other men. What seems to be happening is that people are discovering what our legal system really is.

Mullins is doing his most effective work posthumously. He's not a crank. The system is a turd.

Hatha

[Vendico]

tag

[Desolation LineTrimmer]

Just because the system is a turd does not mean Mullins is not a crank. I didn't watch all those vids, I watched about 5 minutes, and within that time he's advising people to be their own lawyers, based on the observation that everyone behind bars had a lawyer, as though that is significant. Just think of the number of people not behind bars who also had lawyers. I've read most of his books, until one day it dawned on me what a crank he is. I've heard him speak as well. The only book he wrote that is scholarly is Secrets of the Federal Reserve. Every other book he completely dispenses with footnotes, yet makes the most outrageous claims to facts. This coming from a former clerk for the Library of Congress. The guy is brilliant after his own manner, and he is likable, but don't take his advise. My opinion. His crankiest book, by the way, is The Curse of Canaan: A Demonology of History.

[G2Rad]

MULLINS: Oh I certainly have! Because I found that the Rockefellers... In fact, the Evangelical Association was set up by the British secret service in 1848. And then they exported it to this country [and] it became the National Council of Churches. And so they've been very active in the religious movement.

VALENTINE: The National Council of Churches is actually a British spy agency off-shoot?

MULLINS: Oh yeah, it was set up by Lord Henry Palmerston, the head of the British secret service and British foreign minister!

VALENTINE: And their purpose is?

MULLINS: To control the people through their religious observance.


source: http://www.whale.to/b/mullins3.html

[PatColo]

Mullins is the epitome of crank. Entertaining speaker though, although the crankiness gets in the way.



Not sure what to make of your "crank" label for Mullins. He strikes me as exceptionally kind, and even touts how much fun his court escapades were.

Joad Cressbeckler is the epitome of a crank. (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/old_grizzled_third_party)

[Desolation LineTrimmer]

MULLINS: Oh I certainly have! Because I found that the Rockefellers... In fact, the Evangelical Association was set up by the British secret service in 1848. And then they exported it to this country [and] it became the National Council of Churches. And so they've been very active in the religious movement.

VALENTINE: The National Council of Churches is actually a British spy agency off-shoot?

MULLINS: Oh yeah, it was set up by Lord Henry Palmerston, the head of the British secret service and British foreign minister!

VALENTINE: And their purpose is?



MULLINS: To control the people through their religious observance.


source: http://www.whale.to/b/mullins3.html


Yes, Mullins loves to make claims such as the above. Only problem being he never, or rarely, supports the assertion with reference footnotes backing up such fascinating claims. So repeat such claims at your own risk.

[Desolation LineTrimmer]

Mullins is the epitome of crank. Entertaining speaker though, although the crankiness gets in the way.



Not sure what to make of your "crank" label for Mullins. Strikes me as exceptionally kind, and even touts how much fun his court escapades were.

Joad Cressbeckler is a crank. (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/old_grizzled_third_party)




As I said, Mullins is a likable character, He just has a pronounced tendency to make the most outrageous, and fascinating, statements without a shred of supporting evidence. That's cranky, especially when you take into consideration that Mullins never met a conspiracy theory he didn't like. He's down with all of them. Legal, medical, religious, they are all out to enslave you.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Des, might it occur to you that Mullins may be right? Or at least more accurate in his assessment of the turd we call a system?

There are a lot of us cranks out here. The tide may be turning to the cranky side.


Hatha

[PatColo]

His crankiest book, by the way, is The Curse of Canaan: A Demonology of History.


this is the part 3/3 of an '07 Mullins interview; in the first 1+ minute, Mullins explains "The Curse of Canaan: A Demonology of History"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8vLG7hsqr8&NR=1

tons of Mullins interview clips on gootube, variety of topics,
http://www.google.com/search?q=Eustace+Mullins&tbo=p&tbs=vid%3A1&source=vgc&aq=f

Here's a PDF of Mullins' book, "The World Order",
http://iamthewitness.com/books/Eustace.Mullins/The%20World%20Order.pdf

[PatColo]

His crankiest book, by the way, is The Curse of Canaan: A Demonology of History.


this is the part 3/3 of an '07 Mullins interview; in the first 1+ minute, Mullins explains "The Curse of Canaan: A Demonology of History"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8vLG7hsqr8&NR=1

tons of Mullins interview clips on gootube, variety of topics,
http://www.google.com/search?q=Eustace+Mullins&tbo=p&tbs=vid%3A1&source=vgc&aq=f

Here's a PDF of Mullins' book, "The World Order",
http://iamthewitness.com/books/Eustace.Mullins/The%20World%20Order.pdf


More on Curse of Canaan, from 2001 interview, find the other 7 parts on youtube,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rqfd9EtC138

[Desolation LineTrimmer]

Des, might it occur to you that Mullins may be right? Or at least more accurate in his assessment of the turd we call a system?

There are a lot of us cranks out here. The tide may be turning to the cranky side.


Hatha




I started reading Mullins with the assumption that he was accurate since I was a fan of Secrets of the Federal Reserve, a fan of good writing, and a fan of the southern gentlemen style. Also in Mullins' favor, so far as I was concerned, was his close relationship with Ezra Pound. I drifted out of his corner as I read his books and noticed he was basically just giving his opinions without sources or documentation backing those opinions up, but I have already said all of this.

[JDRock]

ANOTHER 5 star thread pat! those of you not yet familiar with mullins work are missing a veritable treasure.

[Awoke]

I am in agreement with Desolation LineTrimmer, in that all things should be backed up with irrefutable sources.

The unfortunate thing is, it is not always easy to find irrefutable sources.

Oftentimes, there is no proof available to outsiders, and only available to partakers in the conspiracy. Take the Franklin Cover-up as example. However, you get to a point when (After doing a pile of research) you can use your gut instinct to make your own decisions and draw your own conclusions/speculations/assertions.
The only thing is, you can not state them as "fact" without backing them up with sources.

For example, I believe George W is a Luciferian pedophile. (Along with all his S&B buddies, as well as the rest of the elites in the NWO conspiracy.)

I can't prove that with irrefutable sources. I can use the testimonies from the Franklin cover-up as sources, but they are not necessarily irrefutable.

[PatColo]

For example, I believe George W is a Luciferian pedophile. (Along with all his S&B buddies, as well as the rest of the elites in the NWO conspiracy.)


GHWB was evidently a pedo (Franklin callboys midnight tours of white house), but the evidence about shrub stops at his being just plain gay. Word is, when shrub did the skull&bones coffin circle jerk ritual where he discloses his sexual history to the other satanist-trainees, pappy bush was there. :puke

http://gaygeorgewbush.tripod.com/bushphotos/image015.gifhttp://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd113/lamepandp/JeffGannon.jpghttp://gaygeorgewbush.tripod.com/bushphotos/bushblowkiss.jpg

For all Clinton's vices, at least he's evidently straight. But he wasn't the latest spawn of multi-generational blue bloods like Commander-In-Chief aWol was; Clinton was most likely a boyhood project monarch mind-controlled/multi-personality product, who was then shepherded through the "pedigree" obstacle course to establishment power (Harvard, Rhodes scholar, etc)

[Desolation LineTrimmer]

A timely article, vis-a-vis this thread, on Mullins and Pound came out recently in Counter-Currents. Please read it, http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/10/eustace-mullins-ezra-pound/

[Book]

For all Clinton's vices, at least he's evidently straight.



http://www.apoliticus.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/monica-lewinsky.jpg

Monika Lewinski. He may be straight but he sure was hard up...lol.

:oo-->

[Awoke]

No joke. What a pig.

I mean, c'mon! He was the POTUS!!!

[Ponce]

I saw one and two and part of three..........I did not learn a danm thing from him ......he was to busy being cute and buddy buddy with everyone.

Anyone knows of some good videos where they really teach you, or show you, how to act in court? and what to do?

[Silver Shield]

Stay out of their system.

Fly below the radar.

Don't do anything stupid.

Don't let them have power over you.

[palani]

Anyone knows of some good videos where they really teach you, or show you, how to act in court? and what to do?

www.creditorsincommerce.com has lots of free mp3s of their seminars and lectures. Their dvds they charge for.

Be aware that court is not a place you voluntarily go to expecting justice. Should you be of the lamb persuasion this is where the fleece gets removed.

[Hatha Sunahara]

I saw one and two and part of three..........I did not learn a danm thing from him ......he was to busy being cute and buddy buddy with everyone.

Anyone knows of some good videos where they really teach you, or show you, how to act in court? and what to do?


Here's a link to a site that will give you advice on the 'legal system'. and a lot of other things:

http://www.intmensorg.info/corruptusacourts.htm

Bottom line: Don't get sucked into it. And Don't believe what your grade school teacher told you about getting justice in court. The system eats the people who get sucked in.

Hatha