Lady Lawyer Educates Policy Enforcer on Law

Proof That Policy Enforcers Are Not Being Taught This

In a corrupt legal system, full disclosure of the relevant issues in making a case to those who are charged with enforcing the “law” is counter productive to the system’s mandated policy of [forced] legalized piracy!  In actuality, it is not legalized at all!  It is patently unlawful, what they are doing and getting away with.  It only seems to be legalized to those law enforcers in the legal system (as well as those of us civilians who are also ignorant of the law) who are purposely kept in the dark about these issues, and therefore the law enforcers have no idea that sometimes what they are doing is actually breaking the law!  

Of course those in the higher echelons of this legal system (the judges, prosecutors, attorneys, and perhaps some court clerks) let them get away with this without charging them with a crime because it would not be good business policy to break up what has become the most lucritive organized corrupt racketeering influenced activity that governments have ever devised to practice against the people.  If the foot soldiers (law enforcement officers, or LEOs for short) were actually informed about the law and what they were being led to do, it is likely that many, if not most, of them would quit their job and go find some honorable occupation elsewhere.  Either that, or they wouldn’t participate.  And if they were later found out not to be participating, sooner or later their jobs would be in jeopardy! 

It seems obvious that such an unethical culture existing in the legal system only promotes to its service the most unscrupulous there is in a society to become a part of that contaminated culture.  Psychopaths, the mentally unbalance, people on power trips, big egos, and authoritarian types are the bottom dwellers who are attracted to such organized crime syndicates.  Especially those who want to be on the side of the Power Lords who make their own laws and run and rule a town or city.  That’s not to say that there are quite a few well meaning types who are employed in the law enforcement profession, but they are gradually becoming the minority among their less scrupulous colleages.  Yet the one thing these people all have in common, though, is that they have been lied to by the legal system. 

Secret societies, such as the one spun by the Legal Guild of the Inner Temple (one of the four Inns of Court of the Crown Temple BAR) in the City of London, work with its membership on a need to know basis, compartmentalizing information among the members.  According to some, not even many of their own members know what is truly going on in terms of the policy being made at the highest levels within the society.   Thus, the same is true of the American franchise of this venerable tradition of theives — the state and national BAR Associations, where the game being played is founded on money, power, and influence.  Yes, the American BAR Association is a franchise member of the Crown Temple BAR.   But enough of the background throwing light on how this system of corruption came to be.  What should concern each one of us here is the fact that this system exists, and is in many ways controlling, as much as is possible, our individual lives and destinies. 

Recently, someone posted a short unassuming video which purports to demonstrate how a lawyer — that is someone learned in law as opposed to an attorney or someone learned in the transfer of property from one lord to another — goes about educating a LEO about the legalities of ticketing one of her clients for supposedly driving uninsured.  Yet, people need to be careful when listening to something like this because unintended false associations in the mind of the listener concerning words and ideas can often create a false impression of the information that is actually being disclosed.  In other words, what appears to be important may not be as important as some of the other things that were brought up or, in this case, exposed in the discourse.  You can find this exchange at either one of the following links:


So don’t be overly impressed by the surface explanation being given about law and violations of law on your first listening, but rather focus upon the nuances the lawyer mentions which are kind of in the background (meaning they won’t stand out to someone not familiar with law) because these may hold the hidden key to this exchange.  In other words, her client has gone to the trouble of establishing a position (on paper), a certain status, within the officer’s presumed jurisdiction.  It may be that this establishment of status, rather than the surface chatter about the nuances of the meaning of the words as they relate to the underlying law, has more significance and is more important as far as the legal system is concerned.  Always keep in mind that when having to deal with a two dimensional paper driven government, if you cannot show a valid proof of your claim, the government is going to default to its presumptions.  And that can be fatal if you are not able to adequately rebut those presumptions by having prepared evidence to rebut them beforehand. 

A word to the wise.  It has taken me several years studying this phenomenon on a near daily basis, reading and thinking about thousands of pages on law and theory of law as well as becoming immersed in the observation of the worldly realm of the daily business of the court system in order to see how things work in reality, to arrive at the depth of my present knowledge base and to be so certain of the conclusions at which I have arrived concerning the hidden (undisclosed) nature of how this legal system works.  You can discount my opinion all you want, but don’t come back to me with your tail between your legs saying, “I should have listened to you and taken what you had to say into consideration.”  By then, it is too late to fix whatever grief has befallen you. 

So with that in mind, let us look at this exchange between a Lady Lawyer and what sounds like a British LEO.  I will endeavor to translate (decode) and explain the points of law that the Lady Lawyer is making so that perhaps you can see what I see.  Any discrepencies in these views between myself and the mind of the reader is strictly the responsibility of the reader, who, had he had the benefit of the experiences I have had, may have been more likely to agree with my assessment. 

The recorded exchange between the two lasts for only ten minutes and forty-seven seconds, but if you can read between the lines and can understand what the attorney side of the Lady Lawyer is stating as oppose to the law side of what she is stating, you should come to the same conclusion as I have.  (By the way, in order to more accurately understand the context of this exchange, I took the time to listen several times to this exchange and to transcribe as much of the relevant parts of it as I could in order to better examine and think about the content.)

The recording begins with the Lady Lawyer having answered her phone on the inquiry from a constable (or in Britain a police officer).  She asks: “Okay, so you’ve had a problem with who?”  The officer answers with the following: “He’s presented himself as called minister [Emoven]. He’s basically driving around in a vehicle that has no valid insurance that we believe. And the vehicle wasn’t registered there on our systems. On the police constabulary system. It was registration ULCT 944. If I recall. And ...” The Lady Lawyer answers, saying, “Yes, ULCT 944 is one of our private conveyances. And the minister [Emoven] who you have there is recorded inside our rolls. And what is it that you require?”  And then she audibly shuts up and waits for the officer to reply.

The officer says: “Well the problem as I say the standard practice from my side of things I know that my vehicle registration is registered with the ah [Warsaw Insurance Bureau??] and the [VLA?]. And obviously I have to pay insurance on that vehicle.  Due to the fact that I’ve not been able to establish that that’s the case with this vehicle as it stands in law or whatever. I’ve got [indecipherable] to arrest this male and obtain his details [not clear what is being said].”

From this point on, pay close attention to what the Lady Lawyer says, and take in every word she utters, because this is critical to understanding the statutory side of the matter.  She said: “Okay so let me... Like you said, obviously this information hasn’t been filtered down.  We are the Secured Party Creditor of HM [Her Majesty’s] government who have or did license the local police officers to act on their behalf of their private corporation.  We are their secured party creditors and we’ve been that since February.  All of the registration documents are held under nondisclosure.  And we will obviously provide any legal document such as driving licenses or insurance on proof of valid claim that that conveyance was being used for commercial activities.  So can you tell me what commerce was that man committing?”

The police officer was taken aback a bit, but responded: “In relation to the usage of that vehicle he was driving...”  The Lady Lawyer, because the officer wasn’t able to answer her question straight away, jumps in stating to further clarify for the officer what she is seeking: “Let me just stop you there. It  only becomes a vehicle if he has got DVL plates on there. What we’ve actually done is the VIN number is actually what he has the right of use of.  And that is what is assigned to the trust.  Now our records here show that, yes, he has got an indemnity cover to cover him for any, ah, any accident or harm loss or damage that he causes anybody else, unless he is commiting commerce.  I.e. he is a taxi or he’s for hire or rent or [indecipherable] or a lorie.  Is the conveyance you’re calling a vehicle does it fit any of those descriptions. And is he being paid to be conveying himself in that conveyance?”  The officer tersely replies, “No.”  

Right then and there she has obliterated the officer’s reason for detaining the man.  The officer could not say with any specificity what the man he was detaining was doing if he were “driving in commerce.”  But also, take special notice of the fact that she is stating that the right of use of the VIN number for the conveyance has been assigned to a private trust!  Very important legal point, that.  It fulfills a statutory requirement for what is called an exception, an exception to the rule of the statute.  In other words, the statute can work according to how the officer presumes it’s working EXCEPT within these certain circumstances.  So, she has established with the officer that the man was not driving in commerce and therefore cannot be legally detained for not showing proof of commercial insurance.  Previously, she established that the man was covered for any injury or damege he might cause by an indemnity plan (possibly an indemnity bond).

The Lady Lawyer continues:  “Okay, so. I’m looking at the record here.  He has got all of those things that you would require if he was in commerce.  And so I, in order for me to release the information to you guys...you’re acting under legislation which is applicable only to commercial vehicles.  And all legal fictions companies corporations and by us doing what we’ve done we’re reserving all of the rights of the people from being presumed to being in commerce.”  The officer responds: “Okay.  So that’s always been critical [indecipherable].”

In review, the Lady Lawyer, in the beginning of her reply, has established that she has an official record upon which she is relying.  Very important legal point, that, if you wish to establish status!  You need to have made a record.  Then she states the legal grounds under which the officer was deficient in proving proof of cause (or violation of codes).  After that, she informs the officer of what her client has done in order to reserve his rights as one of the people from being presumed to be acting in commerce.  The officer accepts her statement.

The Lady Lawyer continues:   “Okay so the law is...that is it’s actually against the law to coerce somebody to commit an act of fraud.  Now what you’re actually asking me to do, you want him to identify himself with the documentation that I’ve got here that’s reserved under a nondisclosure unless he is commiting commerce.  Now if he is commiting commerce, then I’m more than happy to release this information to you.  But as you just stated, he’s not commiting commerce so really, I mean...I know it’s a bit of a shock for you guys, but it’s you guys that are actually breaking the law.  By coercing him into committng fraud because the legal fiction that you want him to use is actually a copyrighted logo belonging to Crown Corporation.”  The officer accepts her assessment simply saying: “Okay.”  After all, he’s speaking with a licensed attorney within their legal system, so why wouldn’t he agree.

 
Now here, from this last statement by the Lady Lawyer, is where many undiscerning people begin to jump to a precarious and questionable conclusion.  They think that they can apply what the Lady Lawyer just stated to their own situation should they end up in a similar situation as the man being detained.  In other words, the law states such and such, and this applies to me, even though I have not done anything to established a record to rebut your presumption.  I am a man (or a woman), and you can’t do that to me because it is against your law.  And on top of that, you could get seven years for doing it!  Try that in a court and see what you get as a response from the judge. I'll bet you won't like what he or she has to say. 

I’m here to state that it would be foolish to assume a conclusion based on simply stating the law without having evidence to back up your declared status.  Why?  Because of the clues the Lady Lawyer has given us thus far regarding how the legal system views this particular circumstance.  Recall that earlier I stated that we are having to deal with a two dimensional paper driven government.  In such an environment, having a two dimen- sional record that we can use to rebut the two dimensional record that the government is relying upon to hold us to account can be critical!  This is how we prove our competency in law in addition to establishing our rights as men and women as far as the legal system is (or should be) willing to recognize (since they won’t tell us one way or the other).  Take some time to really ponder on this point. 

The Lady Lawyer then begins to go into the culmination of the reasons why the officer needs to heed her warning.  And in doing this, she also provides us with additional clues regarding the specific record that she holds which informs her that her client is within his rights to be travelling in his conveyance without the need for having commercial insurance.  She states:  “Now if this goes any further then obviously you’ll keep him for 72 hours, obviously, if you can.  Not that there’s any point in doing so ’cause it’s just going to cost your private corporation that’s registered in the company’s house as a private corporation with a tax reference number. And we’re actually a secured party creditor, so what you’re actually doing is a double whammy because you’re trying to get him to claim against himself.”  The officer accepts her assessment:  “Okay.”

She continues:  “If I haven’t got the right of use of something and I’ve used it ... I’m talking in the least [undecipherable] and taking without consent, or it’s attempted theft or theft. Now imagine your name, that legal fiction, is a copyrighted logo and you haven’t got the right of use of it.  So we contacted HM government and the Home Office and said, ‘Has anybody got the right of use of the legal fiction as a capitalized form of the given name,’ and they said ‘No.’  If you look at the birth certificate it’s got Crown Copyright on the bottom of it.  And it says ‘Not to be used for ID.’ ...  We’re trying to help the people of the country, you know, to establish their rights. And to get rid of this administrative system that is professing to be law.”

Now, from these two disclosures by the Lady Lawyer we learn some interesting things.  We learn that along with her client having a trust, he has also made a record of being a “secured party creditor” to Her Majesty’s government.  And because of that record, she can state confidently to the LEO that “...what you’re actually doing is a double whammy because you’re trying to get him to claim against himself.”  She’s bringing in common law to inform him of the possible criminal activity in which he is participating by abandoning his public office and acting in his private capacity for a private corporation trying to coerce her client into testify against himself.  That’s what’s really going on.  And that that is against the law.  This violation isn’t just in common law, it’s also stated in statutory color of law, which is also a form of law that she is invoking. 

The Lady Lawyer continues:  “Legal isn’t lawful if it causes us to break the law.”  Here we need to pause a moment to consider the gravity of this statement.  Because she’s informing him about the limitations of the legal system to protect him from criminal liability.  He can be prosecuted if he breaks the Law (the thin line between what is obviously right and what is noticeably wrong) while acting in his private capacity as a thug for the criminal legal system that employs him.  Remember, she’s an attorney, he is not.  She is speaking with an authority that most indoctrinated cowardly attorneys dare not speak for fear of losing their license to practice legalized theft!  Whenever you see the word “legal” think of it as meaning  “private man-made color of law.”  It only has authority when both parties have full disclosure (being fully informed) and with their consent and agreement.  Any circumstance lacking those parameters to a legal obligation is null and void. 

So let’s continue.  The Lady Lawyer says:  “Legal isn’t lawful if it causes us to break the law.  And because, like I said, the Home Office has said that we haven’t got a right of use of anything that’s Crown Copyright.  Then you’re actually trying to coerce him into using something that is copyrighted by the Crown ’cause that’s all you can recognize.  In order for you to actually, what you’re actually doing is you’re prosecuting him for using something that’s not his.”  The officer says: “Okay.  Very interesting.  So where do we stand with this chap, then?...”

And in answering him here again, the Lady Lawyer informs him of the legal meaning of the terms he’s been using to describe his situation.  She says, “He has, I mean he only needs a driving license if, like I say, if he’s in commerce.  If he’s driving a vehicle.  So the words ‘driving’ if you look at a Black’s law dictionary or any law dictionary is actually a commercial definition. ‘Vehicle’ is also a commercial definition.”  So now officer Lee has been informed by a licensed attorney about the legal issues regarding the man he is detaining.

The Lady Lawyer continues to explain the legal issues at stake should the officer continue to pursue her client:  “To use a conveyance, on the other hand, is in your private capacity which is why you’ve got those number plates on.  If he put the DVL plates on there, he would be implying that he was in commerce and that would be contract with the system that you are virtually calling the law which is legal civil code.  And it’s commercial code.  Now the situation is at the moment, Lee, is that our counterclaim would be against you for false claim, abduction, and coercing somebody to commit fraud.  Which is seven years.  If you were wearing a uniform and you attempt to force somebody to identify themself, you actually are guilty of immediately of statutory rape.  And this is actually in your police...”  The officer interrupts questioning, “Statutory rape?”  The Lady Lawyer explains to him, “You’re attempting to rape him of his universal rights.  By getting him to diminish himself into being and joindering as a non-entity, as a legal fiction.” Officer Lee acknowledges: “Right.  Okay.”

The phone call is quickly coming to an end.  The Lady Lawyer once again reminds the officer of what she needs in order to release the registration documents being held under non-disclosure.  “... I’m the trustee of his trust.  And so he’s done right in giving you the number.  And like I say, if it can be proved that he is commiting commerce, I’m more than happy to release those documents to you.  But I do need proof of claim.”

Many people will listen to this exchange and take away only a superficial understanding of what just transpired.  They will either ignore or overlook key elements brought out in the exchange.  They will think, as I used to think, that just being able to claim a right in law and being able to point out clear violations by public officers of actual law is enough for the legal system to recognize what is obvious and to withdraw it’s claim of charges.  And then, when they go into court to do just that, they are unexpectedly surprised, and hopefully shocked, when the court rejects their assertions.

Governments these days, and for a long time now, even these incorporated governments, are struggling to maintain credibility and to survive because people are waking up to the environment of corruption that has plagued our government and which has been taking place over many decades.  One should understand that those in government will do anything they have to do in order to survive and maintain their choice of livelihood.  Even if that means, at this late date, breaking the law, including the very same international law that they are presuming to use against the people!

The dirty, ugly secret is:  that governments, not only in America but all over the world, are bankrupt!  And they’ve been bankrupt beginning since 1933 when their monetary systems were taken over by a third party.  To whom are they bankrupt?  To private international financial institutions which control not only the legal system in every country, but virtually every law enforcement agency in America and around the world as well as each country’s military!  Pause for a moment to let the enormity of that statement, that truth sink in.

Now, back to why people should not overlook the key elements being pointed out in the exchange between the Lady Lawyer and the law enforcement officer.  Your chances of prevailing in court are multiple times improved if you can show that court, preferably through the government’s own certified documentation, that it’s presumption of your identity have been rebutted, foreclosing its ability to move forward on the matter.  Even these corrupt government courts know that they cannot move against a private trust where none of the assets are titled in a person’s legal name and are property of the trust.  What will they recognize as being off limits?  That is sometimes hard to say because they keep changing the rules of the game to suit their needs.  You can see it most clearly today in the fact that the government is trying to convince people that the definition of a vaccine has changed.  Or with how economists define a recession — as two straight quarters of decline in GDP (Gross Domestic Product) constituting a recession — because it does not align with the government’s preferred narrative of propaganda.  Propaganda is just another word for deception or a distortion of the facts. 

One thing is certain, at least for the time being, that if one can show a discrepancy in the public record regarding one’s presumed identity, preferably certified in the government’s own [imaginary] hand, then the agent for the government is obligated to back down and acknowledge that discrepancy when he has no evidence to rebut it.  Establishing a formal private trust into which one’s property is placed for safekeeping is one way to show this.  Or making a claim to be a “secured party creditor,” presumably using a U.C.C. financing statement, if states are still accepting these — and I’ve heard from one subscriber who received notice a few years ago that Texas is no longer accepting these; they will honor the older statements but are not accepting any new statements; so how long it will be before this trend will, or has already, spread to other states is anyone’s guess. 

The only bona fide method for achieving such a record, that I am aware of, was introduced to me by another subscriber.  In brief it involves gathering court certified documents from a coroner’s inquest in probate court to prove proof of life of the applicant.  For those who would like more information on this the process, it is explained in great detail in a recent Addendum added to the How To Handle The Five Scenarios ebook, along with information about a resource who will assist people to achieve this.  Or if you’d prefer to check out the resource directly yourself, you can go to the Vocational Science of Freedom (VSOF) web platform on the guilded.gg server to read the text and or watch any one of several educational videos.  You can find an invitational link on the CLR home page in the right hand side panel to obtain a free membership on the VSOF platform, and thereby gain access to the wealth of information that is there for the taking.  Mention in your application that you were sent there by BeatTrafficTickets.org and your application will be processed as quickly as possible so that you can begin absorbing all the incredible information to be found there.    

While there may be other methods of achieving this, the creator researcher and tester of the VSOF has gone to great lengths to improve and solidify his process such that judges are wary of contracting with any of his clients in order to attempt to administrate their estates.  Once they discover that their discretion to control things is no longer authorized, they usually back off.  This is all better explained more concisely in the Addendum to the Five Scenarios ebook where I go in depth behind the history surrounding the reasons for the  effectiveness of this remedy as well as to introduce readers to some of the material they can find on the VSOF web platform (which platform can be tricky to navigate to find information). 

One of the other methods of achieving a rebuttal to the government’s presumption of a person’s identity rests on making a sworn declaration of identity, recording it into the public record, and then using that as evidence of a rebuttal.  And while I can accept the validity of this method on its face as adhering to reason and logic (how could a presumed decedent declare and record a document if he or she were actually deceased), when I attempted to do this in court if fell flat.  So my experience informs me that this method, at least for myself, was not at all effective.  And yet I have one or two subscribers who have written me telling me that it was effective for them.  But not in court!  None of them have provided any detailed analysis of why they thought it was effective, only that it was recognized and their personal situation was de-escalated outside of court.  As far as I’m concerned, that’s incomplete and a risky prospect to rely upon until a definite reason for its effectiveness can be reasonably explained, preferably from the government’s perspective. 

The source that I used in order to create evidence of rebuttal was based on unverified information found in Anna von Reitz’s published material.  As recently as 2018, I followed her suggestions for creating a Deed of Reconveyance package of documents to be recorded and used in one of my court cases.  As I previously stated, it went nowhere with the court.  So, if you wish to take your chances with Anna’s material, feel free to do so.  But if it fails, don’t come back and say you weren’t warned.  I’m not the only person who has a beef with Anna and her incomplete explanations of how to handle legal matters which she recommends; three or four others I have corresponded with have had the same experience and complaint.  One of them to the point that Anna began writing back attacking him for no discernable reason after he asked a simple question that she was unable to answer!  I realize this is only anecdotal evidence, so use it or discard it as you will.  

To return to our analysis of the short exchange between the Lady Lawyer and the LEO, from my perspective, the important take away providing us with a clue is to have established documentary evidence in place (in whatever form, and there may be more than one form) in order to rebut the governments’s presumption of our status which allows government to administer a presumed decedent’s estate through a constructive trust, thereby taking legal control over the actions of a man or woman.  It has been pointed out to me before, by others, that the only thing that matters in court is what is on the public record.  The public record is where the court’s observation of what it considers true exists.  And that record is two dimentional (i.e., not living), not relying upon testimony from a three dimensional man or woman.  In a court that can only recognize ficticious entities represented two dimensionally on paper, it makes sense that that is the only medium the court  will confirm or validate. 

Besides, now you have the testimony of the Lady Lawyer as corroboration.

 
If you would like to learn more about concepts of law so you can avoid the whole mess without having to “appear” in court, you can download our free ebook Common Law Remedy To Beat Traffic Tickets and learn about the secrets that the courts and legal profession don’t want you to know.


If you’d like to learn more about the law and how it can serve you, don’t hesitate to check out our Articles on Traffic Law section. Discover some of the secrets of law that you’ve never been taught!

The laws sometimes sleep, but never die.

Home | About | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Site Map

Copyright  © 2013-2024  BeatTrafficTickets.org   All Rights Reserved. | Designed by TaoLogic