A Lawyer Disbarred For Digging Too Deeply

[Book]

Now then, let's cut the shit and get right too it...the law of God

http://mattstone.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8...72a6970b-800wi

"law" according to Charlton Heston in that jew hollywood movie?

[Awoke]

Another non-contribution from the local Nambla rep.

No, jew, I follow the laws that God wrote on our hearts; the ones Jesus reminded us of. You wouldn't know anything about it.

[dys]

I believe that a lot of the freeman/sovereign stuff has been sabotaged and/or is led by the enemy. Just like everything else, of course, but in this case using this stuff in practice can land a man in jail very easily....rendering the threat of the particular man effete or considerably diminished. I've tried some of this stuff, I speak from experience.
That is not to say that there is no value or no truth to a great deal of it. As I've said in a previous thread, one guy I would recommend is Marc Stevens (he doesn't call himself a sovereign/freeman, though).

dys

[palani]

If you are a "Free man", and recognise God as the absolute authority, what makes referenceing the Magna Carta any more legit than submitting to the Patriot act?

THE law of nations is a system of rules, deducible by natural REASON, and established by universal consent among the civilized inhabitants of the world

Of course you can cite the Magna Carta or the Patriot Act, in part or in whole, as long as the passages cited support REASON. With REASON you take it where you find it. The communist manifesto or mein kampf might include REASON as well (and most probably do), in part, until the REASON that is found is canceled by another REASON. When the REASON is gone the Law associated with that REASON also evaporates.... poof ... GONE!!!

[palani]

As I've said in a previous thread, one guy I would recommend is Marc Stevens (he doesn't call himself a sovereign/freeman, though).

I don't either. I am palani.

[Glass]

This was interesting too.
[/LIST]

I've seen the list and been through several of the cases. Why there is disappointment in reading the list, in some cases you can see where problems have arisen. Many of the penalties are for things like contempt.

If you are in a controversy you have an honour/dishonour issue. Contempt is not a charge against the claims of a sovereign or freeman, it is against behaviour in someone elses jurisdiction.

I've mentioned before that a lot of people get caught up in a kind of ephoria when they hear about sovereign freeman information. A lot go off half cocked without understanding what it is they have discovered and they jump right in.

This is not a game. This is deadly combat. In fact courts replace deadly combat as an avenue to resolve controversies. The stakes are very high and the house decides the rules. The best instruction I have heard is from Winston Shrout. You don't want to be arguing in court and you don't want to be the Defendant in court. You will lose. You want to be the Plaintiff only. Depending on the situation at hand it might be possible to call in co-defendants to divert or dilute the force being brought to bare against you if your are the defendant.

The govt will abandon a claim if it looks like they are going to lose so there is no record of the counter party's success.

[Glass]

The book is: The Practice and Jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty; in three parts. John E. Hall Esq 1809

I have been reading this book with more focus this time. It is extremely interesting where it describes in detail the process that is adhered to with these courts. If you have spent any time spectating in a court, and I recommend every one do this, magistrates or county court, you will see what is described by Hall as occuring in these courts. It helps to know what you are looking for.

Here is a electronic copy of the book at google. You can download it from here by clicking on the cog icon.

This was written a long time ago which the language shows.

If I recall from my Jean Keating studies the Hall book reveals that admiralty (including maritime and commerce) is all about who has the best bond. Whoever's bond is the highest rated wins.

I tend to stay away from debtor and creditor concepts as these deal with money. Once you remove the money issue these notions morph into honor and dishonor. Before you can become comfortable dealing with society in all its possible combinations and permutations of relationships it is necessary to study these concepts so that you can reject them timely (or else dishonor follows).

the point on Bonds is true. You must have a bond when you go into court. If you do not you post yourself as surety. This is a key point in Winston Shrouts material. You have to have a bond regardless of what party you are or you could end up in the slammer.

Should you check that other parties are bonded or can you assume they are appearing with Bond? You have 3 parties. Not the correct number of parties but that's what you have. 2 lawyers and a defendant if you are called as defendant. It should be 2 judges, a defendant and a lawyer.

[palani]

Should you check that other parties are bonded or can you assume they are appearing with Bond?

If you have a question on this why not ask the judge to order the other party to produce theirs?