Greetings,

The Uniform Commercial Code is the private property of Unidroit, an entity that exists in Rome about a block from the Vatican.

The UCC has been codified into public law in the U.S. as Public Law 88-243 Chapter 28, and is also known as part of the D.C. Code. All the corporate states of the U.S. have codified it into their state codes. In the STATE OF WASHINGTON it is at RCW 62A.

The UCC applies to all transactions involving any form of commercial liability, particularly when the obligation is in the form of a transfer of a monetary nature. It especially applies to banking transfers, etc.

Hope this helps,

Lewis

Hello Yardstick,

What are you going to do about the registration of the vechile? It still has a Certificate of Title, does it not?

Are you still a U.S. citizen? What have you done to change your status? I.e., to not be a U.S. citizen?

As to driving habits, I blew past a state trooper yesterday doing 85+, and he didn't even take notice. Why? Because their records show that I am not in "their" jurisdiction. It would be a waste of their time to stop me. This is not to be taken as bragging. It is to be taken as an example of them knowing that you are what you say you want to be.

Just a few thoughts.

Regards,

Lewis

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2409092&forum_id=2Elisa#24401246)

I want to share an interesting experience that happened at a bank a few days ago.

I went into a Bank of America branch to cash a check written to me by one of their customers.

Well, there was a young man in line in front of me with a similar situation. When he got to the counter, the lady teller asked if he had an account there, if he had 2 pieces of identification and informed him that it would cost him $5 to cash the check since he didn't have an account with B. of A.

When it was my turn, I announced "I have a draft against your Bank which I am presenting for Acceptance." The lady stood and just looked at me while I turned the check over and endorsed it: "No Liability Assumed, No Value Assured, My name". The only thing she said next was "Will twenties be acceptable?"

What a difference knowing the right words make. At least this is true when the person on the other side knows they are the right words.

Peace to you all,

Lewis

http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=462

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2409092&forum_id=2Elisa#24401271)

i have been in this same situation,and BoA got my $5 and my thumbprint

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2409092&forum_id=2Elisa#25531045)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2409092&forum_id=2Elisa#31358429)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4432499363708075795&q=baptista+v+chase&hl=en&as_sdt=2006

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2409092&forum_id=2Elisa#25532654)

quote:

Originally posted by Linc

At the bank today I brought in a cheque for a small amount. I said "I am presenting a draft against your bank for acceptance". The teller looked at it and said "that isn't a draft". He went and got his manager. The manager agreed, and said it is bank policy to charge $5 to non-clients for the service of cashing a cheque. They told me that drafts have a special form, which is different from a personal or business cheque.

Is this just a Canadian thing? Are they correct or do I have a cause of action? $5 seems like too small an amount to take to small claims court. Can I pad on claims for inconvenience?

I'm trying to think how I would respond in that situation. I have not had much practice, and I sojourn deep in the woods near a smallish town. So I don't think the local bandits...er...bankers have heard of check cashing charges yet. But when they do, watch out!

Me: "(Big smile.) I have a draft against your bank I'm presenting for acceptance. (Present check.)"

Teller: "That's not a draft!"

Me: "You're telling me that's not a draft? (Take teller's business card from card holder and write date and the word 'dishonor'."

Teller: "Yes! A draft has a special form. What you got thar's what city-folks call a check!"

Me: "Oh, you're telling me I don't have a draft, I have a check. (Underline the word 'dishonor'.)"

Teller: "Yes, suh!"

Me: "Well, then, what special form does a draft have?"

Teller: "Glad you asked! Let me dig out my little black UCC and I'll tell ya! Let's see...draft, a draft is a check that is an order to pay a fixed amount on demand. There you have it."

Me: "Huh? What's the difference? (Write a big exclamation point after 'dishonor'.)"

Teller: "The difference is we can't charge a check cashing fee! Whoops. Did I say that out loud?"

That'll happen...right!

Be blessed!

Jay Scott

https://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=462&whichpage=5

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2409092&forum_id=2Elisa#32065016)

You need to look up the definitions of "Law" and "Code". The UCC is Not LAW! except under the District of Columbia Code, Public Law 88-243 Chp. 28.

All state governments are corporations and cannot pass laws, they can only pass codes. They may stick it under the words "Statutes" but that is just more of the fraud.

Peace to all,

Lewis

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2409092&forum_id=2Elisa#25532584)

We have been underutilizing the powers of a Notary Public. There is much they can do for us that we are not tapping into.

I recommend that each of you find a copy of "The Uniform Law of Notarial Acts" (available on the web) which was passed by Congress making all de facto notaries parties to the Convention de la Haye (Hague Convention) on Notary Public and party to the treaties of the Law of Nations under Law Merchant.

I have a really good case cite from a federal case which stipulates that notaries cannot refuse to do certain acts, even though their local state may tell them otherwise.

One of those duties is to "accept bills for protest and to protest bills." Now, that is commonly know as a Notary Protest. When a Notary Protest is properly performed, the resulting Certificate of Protest becomes a Foreign Judgment. Record that puppy. Then take a certified copy of the recorded copy and enter it into the UNITED STATES DICTRICT COURT in the green file and ask for the court to issue a summary judgment. They have to do so under the Uniform Foreign Judgments Act. If the court refuses to do so, you immediate recourse is to the U.S. Attorney General. If he fails to act in 60 days, then your automatic recourse is to the Secretary General of the UNITED NATIONS. This is all set out in the U.S.Code. I will get the cites and enter them here later.

Something "we" (and I cannot name all of who we are) have also learned is that all the things we are doing thru a Notary can be made more powerful yet, by placing a postage stamp in the area where the Notary is to put his seal, and having the Notary seal the stamp also. Then we sign our "legal signature" thru both the Notary seal and the postage stamp for joinder. We are currently using 2 cent U.S. stamps because 2 cents was the last postage rate authorized by the United States Post Office. All other rates have come from the UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE.

As side note about stamps:

When a friend of mine had his trust dragged into court as being a fraud and a scheme to avoid taxes, the judge never pulled the trust papers all the way out of the envelope. When he saw the Turks and Caicos postage stamps with the Official's signature thru them, he declared the case discharged and ordered the prosecuting attorney into his chambers.

More on another day,

Lewis

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2409092&forum_id=2Elisa#25532604)

He's got nothing on these people.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2409092&forum_id=2Elisa#25546429)

I am going to use this in my memos or motions:

This is all set out in the U.S.Code [statute, case law, etc.]. I will get the cites and enter them here later.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2409092&forum_id=2Elisa#26344754)

*with like a twist of nigerian spammer thrown in to really give it that eyes-slightly-askew tone

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2409092&forum_id=2Elisa#25532626)

When you are truly standing as a Man on the Land, they will recognize the fact and not bother you. I do not try to disguise myself as a diplomat, although I have foreign sovereign immunity, which they do recognize. So, I actually have the right to parade as a diplomat. grin.

When the STATE holds the real title, and you have achieved being a Man on the Land, you can "revoke" and "revest" the real title to the Man. It is all in the Statutes-at-Large. We just have to get the standing to have the authority to do it.

Peace to all,

Lewis-Vincent

a Man standing on Washington

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2409092&forum_id=2Elisa#25532610)

1. Use American Liberty Dollars as much as I can,

2. Pay for "stuff" with cash,

3. No bank accounts (researching how to open checking acct with no SSN),

4. Mailing "address" only lists my first name, no MIDDLE NAME, no LAST NAME, c/o ADDRESS, dejure state name, [ZIP code-9999]

5. Closing old bank accounts,

6. Start own "business" to avoid presumption of "employment". (ask me for more info about the products I have available, via PM, if you like),

7. No DL,

8. No Certificate of Title/Registration with PA,

9. Searching for members of the ecclesia in my area to fellowship with,

10. Do not carry any ID with LEGAL NAME on it.

I am interested in learning from your example, as I have found your experiences enlightening.

I like the concept of the "Real Name dba LEGAL NAME" but have not been able to find enough out about the whys and wherefores of it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2409092&forum_id=2Elisa#25532623)

1. You don't need the MCO. It is not title. It is only evidence of what country the vehicle was manufactured in.

2. You need to register the vehicle in some way. I suggest transfering title to a "true" trust. Expensive to set up, but the best solution. A trust like I am talking about, set up by John Hancock is $100,000.00. Ouch! There are people who will do the same trust, using the same government officials that John Hancock uses for around $5000.00. Once you have the trust set up, then you move the real title from the state to the trust, and the trust issues the registration papers to the "owner". The owner, then sends a copy to the state with notice that this vehicle of foreign jurisdiction will be operated in their state, and here is the contact info in the interest of public safety. Then you put the plates that the trust issues on the vehicle and carry a copy of the registration in the glove box.

3. If you receive mail via any form of service from the U.S. Postal Service, you are by contract in the jurisdiction of the United States. You need an original Post Office slot. It takes some doing, but you can get one. You may have to make a lot of phone calls and visits to find the real post office. The one I know about is at the back of the building that say United States Post Office on the front. The post office customers, ring the rear door bell and are let in to access their mail slot and receive their mail. All contracts with the U.S. Postal Service are then cancelled.

4. There is much more to getting out of their system. This is only the tip of the iceberg.

BTW, look up Legal Name in Black's Law dictionary. That is the name "they" will hold you liable under until you remove yourself from thier jurisdiction.

Regards,

Lewis

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2409092&forum_id=2Elisa#25532635)

would be 180 flame if this was all just a scheme to get people to pay him 5 grand to set up this special trust for them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2409092&forum_id=2Elisa#25532678)

Why Attorneys are not lawyers

In the U.S., they're collectively called everything from "attorney" to "lawyer" to "counselor." Are these terms truly equivalent, or has the identity of one been mistaken for another?

What exactly is a "Licensed BAR Attorney"? This credential accompanies every legal paper produced by attorneys - along with a State Bar License number. As we are about to show you, an ‘attorney’ is not a ‘lawyer’, yet the average American improperly interchanges these words as if they represent the same occupation, and the average American attorney unduly accepts the honor to be called "lawyer" when he is not.

In order to discern the difference, and where we stand within the current court system, it’s necessary to examine the British origins of our U.S. courts and the terminology that has been established from the beginning. It's important to understand the proper lawful definitions for the various titles we now give these court related occupations.

The legal profession in the U.S. is directly derived from the British system. Even the word bar is of British origin:

BAR. A particular portion of a court room. Named from the space inclosed by two bars or rails: one of which separated the judge's bench from the rest of the room; the other shut off both the bench and the area for lawyers engaged in trials from the space allotted to suitors, witnesses, and others. Such persons as appeared as speakers (advocates, or counsel) before the court, were said to be "called to the bar", that is, privileged so to appear, speak and otherwise serve in the presence of the judges as "barristers". The corresponding phrase in the United States is "admitted to the bar". - A Dictionary of Law (1893).

From the definition of ‘bar’, the title and occupation of a barrister is derived:

BARRISTER, English law. A counsellor admitted to plead at the bar. 2. Ouster barrister, is one who pleads ouster or without the bar. 3. Inner barrister, a sergeant or king's counsel who pleads within the bar. 4. Vacation barrister, a counsellor newly called to the bar, who is to attend for several long vacations the exercise of the house. 5. Barristers are called apprentices, apprentitii ad legem, being looked upon as learners, and not qualified until they obtain the degree of sergeant. Edmund Plowden, the author of the Commentaries, a volume of elaborate reports in the reigns of Edward VI., Mary, Philip and Mary, and Elizabeth, describes

himself as an apprentice of the common law. - A Law Dictionary by John Bouvier

(Revised Sixth Edition, 1856).

BARRISTER, n. [from bar.] A counselor, learned in the laws, qualified and admitted to please at the bar, and to take upon him the defense of clients; answering to the advocate or licentiate of other countries. Anciently, barristers were called, in England, apprentices of the law. Outer barristers are pleaders without the bar, to distinguish them from inner barristers, benchers or readers, who have been sometime admitted to please within the bar, as the king's counsel are. - Webster's

1828 Dictionary.

Overall, a barrister is one who has the privilege to plead at the courtroom bar separating the judicial from the non-judicial spectators. Currently, in U.S. courts, the inner bar between the bench (judge) and the outer bar no longer exists, and the outer bar separates the attorneys (not lawyers) from the spectator's gallery. This will be explained more as you read further.

As with the word ‘bar’, each commonly used word describing the various court officers is derived directly from root words:

1). From the word solicit is derived the name and occupation of a ‘solicitor’;

one who solicits or petitions an action in a court.

SOLICIT, v.t. [Latin solicito] 1. To ask with some degree of earnestness; to make petition to; to apply to for obtaining something. This word implies earnestness in seeking... 2. To ask for with some degree of earnestness; to seek by petition; as, to solicit an office; to solicit a favor. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

2). From the word attorn is derived the name and occupation of an

‘attorney’; one who transfers or assigns property, rights, title and allegiance to the owner of the land.

ATTORN / v. Me. [Origin French. atorner, aturner assign, appoint, f. a-torner turn v.] 1. v.t. Turn; change, transform; deck out. 2. v.t. Turn over (goods, service, allegiance, etc.) to another; transfer, assign. 3. v.i. Transfer one’s tenancy, or (arch.) homage or allegiance, to another; formally acknowledge such transfer. attorn tenant (to) Law formally transfer one’s tenancy (to), make legal acknowledgement of tenancy (to a new landlord). – Oxford English Dictionary 1999.

ATTORN, v.i. [Latin ad and torno.] In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another. This is the act of feudatories, vassels or tenants, upon the alienation of the estate. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

ATTORNMENT, n. The act of a feudatory, vassal or tenant, by which he consents, upon the alienation of an estate, to receive a new lord or superior, and transfers to him his homage and service. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

ATTORNMENT n. the transference of bailor status, tenancy, or (arch.) allegiance, service, etc., to another; formal acknowledgement of such transfer: lme. – Oxford English Dictionary 1999.

3). From the word advocate comes the meaning of the occupation by the

same name; one who pleads or defends by argument in a court.

ADVOCATE, v.t. [Latin advocatus, from advoco, to call for, to plead for; of ad and voco, to call. See Vocal.] To plead in favor of; to defend by argument, before a tribunal; to support or vindicate. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

4). From the word counsel is derived the name and occupation of a

‘counselor’ or ‘lawyer’; one who is learned in the law to give advice in a court of law;

COUNSEL, v.t. [Latin. to consult; to ask, to assail.] 1. To give advice or deliberate opinion to another for the government of his conduct; to advise. - Webster's 1828

Dictionary.

LAWYER. A counselor; one learned in the law. - A Law Dictionary by John Bouvier

(Revised Sixth Edition, 1856).

Although modern usage tends to group all these descriptive occupational words as the same, the fact is that they have different and distinctive meanings when used within the context of court activities:

Solicitor - one who petitions (initiates) for another in a court

Counselor - one who advises another concerning a court matter

Lawyer - [see counselor] learned in the law to advise in a court

Barrister - one who is privileged to plead at the bar

Advocate - one who pleads within the bar for a defendant

Attorney - one who transfers or assigns, within the bar, another's rights & property acting on behalf of the ruling crown (government)

It's very clear that an attorney is not a lawyer. The lawyer is a learned counselor who advises. The ruling government appoints an attorney as one who transfers a tenant's rights, allegiance, and title to the land owner (government).

Feudal Tenancy

If you think you are a landowner in America, take a close look at the warranty deed or fee title to your land. You will almost always find the words tenant or tenancy. The title or deed document establishing your right as a tenant, not that of a landowner, has been prepared for transfer by a licensed BAR Attorney, just as it was carried out within the original English feudal system we presumed we had escaped from in 1776.

A human being is the tenant to a feudal superior. A feudal tenant is a

legal person who pays rent or services of some sort for the use and occupation of another's land. The land has been conveyed to the tenant's use, but the actual ownership remains with the superior. If a common person does not own what he thought was his land (he's legally defined as

a feudal tenant, not the superior owner), then a superior person owns the land and the feudal tenant - person pays him to occupy the land.

This is the hidden Feudal Law in America. When a person (a.k.a. human being, corporation, natural person, partnership, association, organization, etc.) pays taxes to the tax assessor of the civil county or city government (also a person), it is a payment to the superior land owner for the right to be a tenant and to occupy the land belonging to the superior. If this were not so, then how could a local government sell the house and land of a person for not rendering his services (taxes)?

We used to think that there was no possible way feudal law could be exercised in America, but the facts have proven otherwise. It's no wonder they hid the definition of a human being behind the definition of a man. The next time you enter into an agreement or contract with another person (a legal entity), look for the keywords person, individual, and natural person describing who you are.

Are you the entity the other person claims you are? When you "appear" before their jurisdiction and courts, you have agreed that you are a legal person unless you show them otherwise. You will have to deny that you are the person and state who you really are. Is the flesh and blood standing there in that courtroom a person by their legal definition?

See http://ecclesia.org/lawgiver/person.html for your role in the BAR Attorney system as a Feudal Tenant.

British Accredited Registry (BAR)?

During the middle 1600's, the Crown of England established a formal registry in London where barristers were ordered by the Crown to be accredited. The establishment of this first International Bar Association allowed barrister–lawyers from all nations to be formally recognized and accredited by the only recognized accreditation society. From this, the acronym BAR was established denoting (informally) the British Accredited Registry, whose members became a powerful and integral force within the International Bar Association (IBA). Although this has been denied repeatedly as to its existence, the acronym BAR stood for the British barrister-lawyers who were members of the larger IBA.

When America was still a chartered group of British colonies under patent - established in what was formally named the British Crown territory of New

England - the first British Accredited Registry (BAR) was established in Boston during 1761 to attempt to allow only accredited barrister-lawyers access to the British courts of New England. This was the first attempt to control who could represent defendants in the court at or within the bar in America.

Today, each corporate STATE in America has it's own BAR Association, i.e. The Florida Bar or the California Bar, that licenses government officer attorneys, NOT lawyers. In reality, the U.S. courts only allow their officer attorneys to freely enter within the bar while prohibiting those learned of the law - lawyers - to do so. They prevent advocates, lawyers, counselors, barristers and solicitors from entering through the outer bar. Only licensed BAR Attorneys are permitted to freely enter within the bar separating the people from the bench because all BAR Attorneys are officers of the court itself. Does that tell you anything?

Here's where the whole word game gets really tricky. In each State, every licensed BAR Attorney calls himself an Attorney at Law. Look at the definitions above and see for yourself that an Attorney at Law is nothing more than an attorney - one who transfers allegiance and property to the ruling land owner.

Another name game they use is "of counsel," which means absolutely nothing more than an offer of advice. Surely, the mechanic down the street can do that! Advice is one thing; lawful representation is another.

A BAR licensed Attorney is not an advocate, so how can he do anything other than what his real purpose is? He can't plead on your behalf because that would be a conflict of interest. He can't represent the crown (ruling government) as an official officer at the same time he is allegedly representing a defendant. His sworn duty as a BAR Attorney is to transfer your ownership, rights, titles, and allegiance to the land owner. When you hire a BAR Attorney to represent you in their courts, you have hired an officer of that court whose sole purpose and occupation is to transfer what you have to the creator and authority of that court. A more appropriate phrase would be legal plunder.

The official duties of an Esquire

Let's not forget that all U.S. BAR Attorneys have entitled themselves, as a direct result of their official BAR license and oaths, with the British title of esquire. This word is a derivative of the British word squire.

SQUIRE, n. [a popular contraction of esquire] 1. In Great Britain, the title of a gentleman next in rank to a knight. 2. In Great Britain, an attendant on a noble warrior. 3. An attendant at court. 4. In the United States, the title of magistrates and

lawyers. In New-England, it is particularly given to justices of the peace and judges.

- Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

ESQUIRE n. Earlier as squire n.1 lme. [Origin French. esquier (mod. écuyer) f. Latin scutarius shield- bearer, f. scutum shield: see -ary1.] 1. Orig. (now Hist.), a young nobleman who, in training for knighthood, acted as shield-bearer and attendant to a knight. Later, a man belonging to the higher order of English gentry, ranking next below a knight. lme. b Hist. Any of various officers in the service of a king or nobleman. c A landed proprietor, a country squire. arch. – Oxford English Dictionary

1999.

During the English feudal laws of land ownership and tenancy, a squire - esquire - was established as the land proprietor charged with the duty of carrying out, among various other duties, the act of attornment [see definition above] for the land owner and nobleman he served.

Could this be any simpler for the average American to understand? If our current U.S. BAR Attorneys were just lawyers, solicitors, barristers, advocates or counselors, then they would call themselves the same. They have named themselves just exactly what they are, yet we blindly cannot see the writing on the wall.

The BAR Attorneys have not hidden this from anyone. That's why they deliberately call themselves Esquires and Attorneys at law. It is the American people who have hidden their own heads in the sand.

Knowing these simple truths, why would anyone consider the services of BAR Attorney-Esquire as his representative within the ruling courts of America? Their purposes, position, occupation, job, and duty is to transfer your allegiance, property, and rights to the landowner, a.k.a. STATE. They are sworn oath officers of the State whose sole authority is to transfer your property to their landowner-employer. Think about this the next time you enter their courtrooms. From now on, all Americans should refuse to enter past the outer bar when they are called. Who would voluntarily want to relinquish all he has by passing into their legal trap that exists inside that outer bar?

We must all refuse to recognize their royal position as Squires and refuse to hire them as our representatives and agents. They can't plead or argue for you anyway; all they can do is oversee the act of attornment on behalf of the ruling government whom they serve as official officers. Nothing stops your neighbor from being a barrister or lawyer. No real law prohibits any of us from being lawyers! Even Abraham Lincoln was a well-recognized lawyer, yet he had no formal law degree. Let the BAR Attorneys continue in their jobs as property transfer agent-officers for the State, but if no defendant hires them, they'll have to get new jobs or they'll starve. Fire your BAR Attorney and represent yourself as your own lawyer, or hire any non-BAR-

licensed lawyer to assist you from outside the courtroom bar.

Refuse to acknowledge all judges who are also licensed BAR Attorneys.

Every judge in Florida State is a member of the Florida BAR. This is unlawful and unconstitutional as a judge cannot be an Esquire nor can he represent

any issue in commerce, such as that of the State. Every Florida State judge has compromised his purported neutral and impartial judicial position by

being a State Officer through his BAR licensure. This is an unlawful

monopoly of power and commerce.

The Unauthorized Practice of Law

Fire your BAR Attorney. Refuse to acknowledge their corrupt inner-bar

courts of thievery. Formally charge them with the illegal act of practicing law without lawful authority. Why? A BAR Attorney is not a lawyer by lawful

definition. An Esquire is an officer of the State with the duty to carry out

State activities, including ‘attornment’.

State officers have no constitutional authority to practice law as lawyers, barristers, advocates, or solicitors. Americans should begin formally charging these false lawyers with unlawfully practicing the profession of law since their BAR licenses only give them the privilege to be Attorneys and Squires over land transfers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2409092&forum_id=2Elisa#25532663)

the jump from "etymological study" to "arrest all attorneys as frauds" is quite an experience as you read it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2409092&forum_id=2Elisa#25532684)

Here's what happened in a nutshell.

I started a lawsuit under Title 50 USC App 9 & 10 for taking without just compensation by the Alien Property Custodian now delegated to US Attorney General.

Went through the District Court , Appeals Xourt as well as the Supreme Court and last the Federal Claims Court

All kicked it out as unintelligible and amazingly each court lost my most important exhibits. They all followed the same practice of not notifying me or having the Defendant's attorney notify me of there actions otherwise I never received a copy of responding documents until the time to object was over and they were approved, because of no response.

I think we better start our own nation !!!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2409092&forum_id=2Elisa#25532680)

man what are the odds

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2409092&forum_id=2Elisa#25532694)

And then began the most revealing and In Lighting phase.

after a long and steady "I WILL HOLD YOU IN COMTEMPT" which seemed like a broken record coming from the tongue of that one-sided referee, not having any words to cover the lies, and seeming as if she needed something to stop Truth, suddenly a loud buzz began to sound... I stood there patiently without flinching a muscle and kept my eyes on the one-sided referee, also turned my head to see how the rest of the "spectators" where reacting to the loud buzz. I kept my wits about myself while noticing that it was the rest of the 'referre' and the 'spectators' which where reacting with tension and shaky. This loud buzz lasted about two to three minutes, then towards the end, four cops entered and stood behind me and beside me waiving hand-cuffs. The buzz stopped and I emmidiately continued with what I was telling them, finally advising them that I would not be "consumed" by their many lies and deceitful snares and web of wickedness in order to hide or justify their corrupt and evil existance. Seems like the COPS, (doing their JOBS), where desperate to show allegiance to their many gods and commenced to tell me to walk with them outside the "court," then cornered me on a tight little hallway leading to a locked metal exit door, then one in particular began to harras me telling me to put my name on some yellow paper,which I did not, then one of the cops asked me of what re-legion I was, to where I answered that it was not made of bricks and mortar... then the other cop interupted again demanding that I would put my name on the paper, which I did not, then the cop grabbed a red pen and wrote, "refused to sign."

All the while, being cramped and cornered on that small and narrow hall (maybe 3' x 6') while the four cops and I where standing cramped, suddenly an attorney which was intent on taking the "case" showed up and in a nervous tone asked, "HEY, DON'T YOU GIVE CEASAR WHAT BELONGS TO CEASAR?" Without any restriction I proceeded to leave... and nothing stopped me after that... all I said during that swift moment of departure was, "this attorney is talking about the image"... Then I was free... severing from that close encounter and breaking away... sort of like gliding away on my own two feet , matrix like... while walking across and the sorroundings becoming more and more open and spacious... out the entrance of that brick and mortar building to open space where the living trees and the Living Light of the Heavens greeted me with a warm hug. I walked and walked through the parking lot until I reached where I had to go and was outta there. Free but willingly a servant for Father only.

There was more to that hourly long "hearing," but one Truth for sure... the words which where coming out of my mouth where not rehearsed, and I realized then that no man-made con-trap-tion can ever break the True Vibrations for Fathers Light and Grace.

Blessed Is He, The Messiah, My Father, Judge and Living Guide, which washes away the sins of the earth, and builds upon the hearts of men vast awakenings and solid foundations created for the betterment of mankind, In His Image, for ever and ever Amen,

I am, In Him,

Manuel

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2409092&forum_id=2Elisa#25532705)

I wish I could see someone pull this first line in court.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2409092&forum_id=2Elisa#25546464)

They where here during the Colonisation, The Revolutionary War, The War of 1812, The Civil War, and all the rest of these wars up till now.

There is a little pocket size booklet named, "Treason, by Ralph Boryszewski" which is an offshoot of a book he wrote called "The CONstitution that never was." Ralph's pocket-booklet (Treason) can be gotten by calling him at telephone # 989-344-9950, and the list prices are:

1-25 - $1.00 each, 26-500 - .75 cents each, 501 and more - .50 cents each. The book itself (The CONstitution That Never Was) has lots more pertinent info which I recommend.

Greetings to youas well Uncle Buck,

You see, public policy is not law, but a way to circumvent the original intents of true laws, by harboring certain sects of the masses,while at the same time disregarding others, being sex, gender, race and all other sorts of divisions they can maneuver and split apart through threat, duress and coercion.

I am,

Manuel

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2409092&forum_id=2Elisa#25532714)

I live in my body. In order to keep my body alive, I shelter it in a small house in Colorado Springs. I built this house on land in my stewardship. The house is solar powered for the most part and is very comfortable and warm; it suits me well. I admit to having certain sociataly (is that a word?) induced pyscosies. Of course, that means I think I'm well adjusted. Like most of you who are here (virtualy) not all of my conditioning has stuck and I root it out where I find it. In that regard, David Merrill has been of great help to me and I am privledged to call him friend.

I embarked one day to build this warehouse, and a couple of months later there she stood. I neglected to ask if I could do this horrible thing... build a shelter, with my "money", on my land, without utilities, without The Bank. Men came, notices appeared with threats attached, prayers, David, Saving to suitors case, glorious solitude!

I know details are sketchy, but I type at glacial speed. I have been reading this forum for a long time now. I sympathize with many of your plights and am happy so many hack at the roots.

Werner Maximilian

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2409092&forum_id=2Elisa#25532739)

"Greetings and salutations, brother Greg:

Congratulations, to you and your woman! When Yahuwah [IEHOVAH] is the third party [God/Ruler] in your union, she becomes your woman, and not your wife.

There is no word for wife in the ancient Ibriy [Hebrew]; ‘ishshah means woman, and not wife at all, unless we apply the number one meaning for the word wife, as found in our Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1916-1960, page 978 (1960) 1. A woman; an adult female, which, of course, is not the legal meaning of the word. Furthermore, the word husband did not mean what it does today.

As a second witness we find this under the etymology of the word husband in Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, "It [the word husband] had no relation primiarily with marriage; but among the common people, a woman calls her consort my man ['ish], and the man calls his wife ['ezer/helpmate] , my woman ['ishshah] as in Hebrew [Ibriy]....by some other means[1], husband came to denote the consort of the female head of the family."[Emphasis and bracketed info added]

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman ('ishshah) he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy man ('ish), and he shall rule over thee.

The only other word that was translated "husband" (KJV) is the Ibriy word ba'al[2], which, as a noun, means lord or master.

2Samu'el 11:26 And when the woman ('ishshah) of Uriah heard that Uriah her man ('ish) was dead, she mourned for her lord/master (ba'al)."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2409092&forum_id=2Elisa#25532741)

The English word, *husband* is from the ancient Norse, *hus-bondr*, which is "house" + "bonder", a bonder being the master of thralls, usually the father of the house. He held the house together and was *King* therein of the castle. *King* comes from *Cyn-ing*, making and binding of *kin*. They don't teach you this in the schools of a system that wants only secret kings behind the shadows, not real kings in their own houses.

This is exactly what a husband was among the ancient Hebrews, a house-bonder and a kin-maker, as the Vikings and Norsemen descended from the Hebrews and preserved their system of Law, gave it to the Anglos, which is why the united states of America ever came to exist in the first place. The foundation of the legal system is The Family, not a man-made government, not even what is called common law, as common law is a system of usages and customs derived from the association of free families.

It is all so simple as to defy description. It is self-evident, cannont and need not be described or elucidated. It is man's desire to judge good and evil that prevents him from seeing the plain truth programmed into the creation of God. True Government is an outgrowth of God's creation, The Family, not a device of theologians and politicians.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2409092&forum_id=2Elisa#25532748)

HUGHES was arrested August 25, 2004, after a 31 hour stand-off with federal agents, Snohomish County Sheriff's Officers and members of local swat teams. FBI agents had gone to HUGHES' home the day before with a search warrant related to a fraud investigation in North Carolina. HUGHES refused to allow the agents to enter the home and said he had loaded weapons he would use to protect his property if the agents tried to enter. Over the 31 hour stand-off there were numerous attempts to negotiate with HUGHES to no avail. Finally, HUGHES was arrested by FBI SWAT team members when he came out of the house to empty his trash. Inside the home federal agents found four weapons loaded and ready to fire.

HUGHES chose to act as his own attorney at trial with the assistance of two public defenders. He was found guilty on October 22, 2004.

At sentencing today HUGHES repeatedly refused to recognize the authority of the court, calling on federal marshals to take Judge Coughenour into custody. HUGHES said "I demand to be released" and claimed that he was making a citizens arrest of the Judge on charges of treason and sedition. Judge Coughenour instructed HUGHES to sit down and cautioned him that if he fails to comply with the terms of his supervised release he will find himself doing more prison time.

The case was investigated by the FBI and prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Tessa Gorman. For additional information please contact Emily Langlie, Public Affairs Officer for the United States Attorney's Office, Western District of Washington at (206) 553-4110.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2409092&forum_id=2Elisa#25532764)

This announcement is being sent to you because you may be someone who will understand and appreciate what this represents. Please pass it on to any others you may feel to be of like mind.

By the way, both Ed and Lewis prevailed in their suit as Defendants in...

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KATHY RAY WAHLER, EDWARD WILLIAM WAHLER, LEWIS VINCENT HUGHES, Case No. 1:08CR55, United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division, January 12, 2010.

Announcing a U.S. Supreme Court Lawsuit for your benefit

As some of you may know, Ed Wahler and Lewis Hughes have announced, on their Republic Broadcasting program, that they will be taking to the U.S. Supreme Court our causes of action regarding the transformation of our constitutional republic into a legislative democracy through the social security contract and other commercial legal relations. This case will be filed with the Supreme Court as an original action. It is not an appeal, from a lower court. We are making available an opportunity for like minded People, who want to save our Country, to join the Lawsuit as plaintiffs. We are naming each of the 50 states as defendants and therefore need a plaintiff from each of the 50 states. This lawsuit is destined to be a landmark case. It will either restore this Country to a representative republic form of government, or the Court will have to openly demonstrate that there is no more rule of law or constitution in this country and we are living in a dictatorship.

If you are interested please pre-register to receive a draft copy of the complaint when it is ready. Once you have read it you will have an opportunity to confirm your desire to be a plaintiff. We will be asking each plaintiff for a $100 donation to help cover copying and cost of service of the complaint on the Governor and Attorney General of each state.

You will also be required to sign a document granting the lead plaintiffs authority to act as Attorneys-in-fact and Agents, for the entire group of plaintiffs. There will also be an agreement on public disclosures and contacts that you will need to sign. We will not be using a BAR attorney for this litigation.

If you'd like preview of what the case is all about, please go to our website: [link to www.usav.me,] to view a presentation. We ask that you send an email to Lewis at LewisVHughes@inbox.com, or to Ed at ed@usav.me, to pre-register so that we can communicate with you directly and keep a tally of the states for which we have potential plaintiffs. In your e-mail, please tell us on which state you are living.

Please forward this e-mail to all the like-minded People you know.

Thank you for your time and attention,

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2409092&forum_id=2Elisa#25532786)

Snohomish 'Sovereign Citizen' sentenced on guns, pot charges

Judge: 'A lot of people ... who have held these views and are sitting in prison.'

By LEVI PULKKINEN, SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF | July 12, 2010

0

For a man caught with an automatic weapon, body armor and a sizable marijuana grow, Andrew Steven Gray was polite.

Addressing the court, Gray made clear his respect for the federal prosecutor who pursued the case against him and the judge who would send him to prison for guns and pot with which he was caught.

Equally clear was his belief that he -- a convicted felon well before he drew the FBI's attention in April 2009 -- had every right to amass a 21-gun collection, including a fully automatic assault rifle,and that the government had no business in his business.

Since dismissing his attorney earlier this year, Gray has offered arguments to the court straight from the "Sovereign Citizen" legal playbook. Adherents to the ideology offer bizarre legal arguments couched in archaic language making, at base, a claim that the federal government lacks authority over the citizenry.

Having heard Gray calmly discuss his objection to "peonage" and offer to settle the government's claims by peaceably parting ways, U.S. District Court Judge John C. Coughenour dismissed the Sovereign Citizen talk as often-recycled "nonsense."

Gray, 33, previously pleaded guilty to gun and drug charges as part of a plea deal that saw prosecutors recommend the four-year prison term imposed by Coughenour. Since striking the agreement, though, Gray attempted to withdraw his plea while denying the federal court's ability to sentence him.

"I suspect you're getting advice from others," Coughenour said Friday before sentencing Gray to a four-year prison term. "It not unique. There are a lot of people around this country who have held these views and are sitting in prison."

The Federal Bureau of Investigation launched an investigation into Gray in April 2009 after a paid informant told authorities Gray had been shooting at a Snohomish County range known as the Militia Training Center, the lead FBI agent on the case told the court. Due to his previous felony drug conviction, Gray is barred from handling firearms.

The informant obtained a recorded statement during which Gray was heard admitting to gun possession, according to the agent's statement. With that recording, federal agents obtained a search warrant and on May 4, 2009 raided a storage locker and home occupied by Gray.

At the locker, agents allegedly discovered a stash of weapons, four sets of armor and 9,000 rounds of ammunition. The cache included four unregistered silencers, as well as a M-16-style machine gun fitted for automatic fire. Among the weapons seized were two guns manufactured by a now-closed Snohomish gunsmith whose offerings include parts named "Christian warrior" and "NObama."

Agents also raided a Snohomish home, inside which they discovered the 300- to 500-plant marijuana operation, according to court documents. Gray was arrested and charged with of unlawful machinegun and silencer possession, felon in possession of a firearm and marijuana possession with the intent to distribute.

Having failed in an attempt to withdraw a guilty plea he entered earlier this year, Gray disputed the government's right to punish him for the offenses.

"It has never been my intent to violate the law," Gray told Coughenour on Friday. "I've never been violent and wish to be at peace with all men at all times. …

"I believe I'm being held in involuntary servitude."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2409092&forum_id=2Elisa#25545376)

*rushes to delete profile*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2409092&forum_id=2Elisa#25532803)

http://canlii.ca/t/fsvjq

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2409092&forum_id=2Elisa#32065444)

If we didn't have law licensing, these are the sort of people who would be clogging up the courts.

"GOLD FRINGE! GOLD FRINGE!"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2409092&forum_id=2Elisa#25546416)