The Belligerent Claimant in Person

[Glass]

This topic was raised before in this very good thread on Drivers Licences (http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?32026-Why-Some-People-Need-A-Driver-s-License&highlight=Belligerent+Claimant+Person) and I think it's worthy of having another look. I think so because threads like this one U.S. Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision: Constitution is Void (http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?42750-U.S.-Supreme-Court-Issues-Landmark-Decision-Constitution-is-Void&highlight=Belligerent+Claimant+Person) .

The Belligerent Claimant in Person



The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person." McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohiohttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/mag-glass_10x10.gif (http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/911242#) App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral persuasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. . . . He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus."

Note the verdict's confrontational language: "fighting", "combat", and most surprising, "belligerent". Did you ever expect to ever read a Federal Court condemn citizens for being "passive" or "ignorant"? Did you ever expect to see a verdict that encouraged citizens to be "belligerent" IN COURT...?

Better go back and re-read that extraordinary verdict. And read it again. And commit it to memory, for it succinctly describes the essence of the American legal system.

The court ruled that the Constitutional Right against self-incrimination is NOT automatically guaranteed to any citizen by any government branch or official. Moreover, despite the government's usual propaganda, this Right is NOT available to all persons: It is not available to the "passive", the "ignorant", or the "indifferent". Nor can this Right be claimed by an attorney on behalf of his client. The Right against self-incrimination is available only to the knowledgeable, "belligerent claimant", to the individual willing to engage in "sustained combat" to FIGHT for his RIGHT.


http://www.familyrightsassociation.com/bin/white_papers-articles/gov_not_protecting_rights.html

Plenty more on this court case (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=McAlister+vs.+Henkle%2C&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Fss&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&sa=X&ei=erBkTo3WK6aOiAeAlfWhCg&ved=0CBYQvgUoAA&q=McAlister+vs.+Henkle,&nfpr=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=121f6bf5f6f89279&biw=1280&bih=619) @ google

[Twisted Titan]

And even then it is still a joke

When you got to court you have a least two (possibly three) lawyers conspiring against you.

You dont pervail with those odds and they know it.

[palani]

valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person

Legal doublespeak. The legal system believes PERSONS have rights rather than man or woman. I would guess that is because man or woman was created by another while PERSONS are created by the legal system. You get to control what you create. So do they.

As I have stated in the past, a PERSON is a word, an action or representation. A person is not a principal. A person is an agent REPRESENTING a principal. Court is full of agents. You cannot avoid them. If you were the only principal in a courtroom of agents you would automatically outrank all of them. Their only hope is to get you to represent yourself in which case you are brought down to the same level as all other agents. Rather than be led in a docile manner to your own execution recognize that it is your choice to be there in the first place.

Behavior is what is punished. Arguing is behavior that is punishable. Agreeing is preferable but do it in the form of a counter-offer. Everything you are presented with is an offer. Bailiff says "ALL RISE". Stay seated because if you rise you agree to behaving in a public forum. It is far preferable to remain seated in private.

[palani]

You dont pervail with those odds and they know it.

Overcome your human-ness and act like a man. You might be surprised at the result.

[po boy]

Legal doublespeak. The legal system believes PERSONS have rights rather than man or woman. I would guess that is because man or woman was created by another while PERSONS are created by the legal system. You get to control what you create. So do they.

As I have stated in the past, a PERSON is a word, an action or representation. A person is not a principal. A person is an agent REPRESENTING a principal. Court is full of agents. You cannot avoid them. If you were the only principal in a courtroom of agents you would automatically outrank all of them. Their only hope is to get you to represent yourself in which case you are brought down to the same level as all other agents. Rather than be led in a docile manner to your own execution recognize that it is your choice to be there in the first place.

Behavior is what is punished. Arguing is behavior that is punishable. Agreeing is preferable but do it in the form of a counter-offer. Everything you are presented with is an offer. Bailiff says "ALL RISE". Stay seated because if you rise you agree to behaving in a public forum. It is far preferable to remain seated in private.


What would you counter offer to a murder charge?

[palani]

What would you counter offer to a murder charge?

Tough one. One from the past is non-assumpsit by way of confession and avoidance but then this is in the form of a plea and the current system only wants to hear GUILTY or NOT GUILTY. This being the case the form of the counter offer would be GUILTY OF THE FACTS BUT NOT THE CONTROVERSY.

The record closes as soon as the the GUILTY is entered. No record. No facts. When there are no facts there is nothing for the appeals court to review (they are charged with applying the facts to the law).

A single judge has no authority to do anything other than hold over for bail or release on recognizance. It takes two or more judges to come to a legal determination (you waive this if you don't object timely to a single judge). Where you DO find more than a single judge is at the appeal court. Therefore the actual trial comes at appeal.

[po boy]

Single judges sentence everyday court is in session and pleas are part of the case and are on record.

[po boy]

Would you agree to tax evasion if you earned no income? How would you prove you were not liable without an argument?

[po boy]

Argument is what one might do to prove the law is unconstitutional as applied to oneself and an Attorney cannot do that for you as all he can do for you is dispute the facts.

[palani]

Single judges sentence everyday court is in session and pleas are part of the case and are on record. Merely an offer. Judges can write in either a large hand or a small hand. If written in small hand the opinion is intended for clerks. Us illiterate people need to have large hand so we can understand it.

[palani]

Would you agree to tax evasion if you earned no income? How would you prove you were not liable without an argument? A counter offer would be to show IN EVIDENCE any document I signed where I agreed to pay any amount of money. Suggest that the statute of fraud applies to the IRS as well as any other private entity. The statute of fraud simply states that there is no debt that you can be stuck with if there is no writing.

For this reason you might want to guard your signature with "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" or "UNDER PROTEST". I go even further "VI ET ARMIS".

[palani]

Argument is what one might do to prove the law is unconstitutional as applied to oneself and an Attorney cannot do that for you as all he can do for you is dispute the facts. The function of an attorney (a member of a private guild called a BAR) is to insure that all your RIGHTS are protected. Stated another way, his function is to make sure you have no BASIS for an appeal. .... and the appeal is where the real trial takes place.

[po boy]

Merely an offer. Judges can write in either a large hand or a small hand. If written in small hand the opinion is intended for clerks. Us illiterate people need to have large hand so we can understand it.

Judges have a penal code to follow minimums are just that and a counter offer may just land one the maximum.

[palani]

Judges have a penal code to follow minimums are just that and a counter offer may just land one the maximum.

Ever play poker? Table stakes get high.

Ever play chess? The king never gets killed off. That doesn't mean he doesn't get put in hock.