The Twelve Presumptions Of Court
Which
Must Be Overcome
For anyone who has seriously looked at and studied court procedure over
the years, which not very many of us have, one of the things he will
have noticed is how once the people catch onto some legal loophole or
other that provides them remedy to successfully challenge a fixed and
corrupt legal system, the courts will change their procedures to render
the people’s process ineffective.
For example, at one time, any public officer bringing a complaint into
court, like a traffic ticket, had to show up in court and present the
complaint and assert the charge in person at the first
hearing.
In victimless traffic citations, when the alleged defendant challenged
the fact that there was no damaged party through a notice back to the
officer (along with sending notice to the court of this action) asking
for evidence of a damaged party supporting personam jurisdiction and
the officer had none, the matter was usually dismissed at the initial
hearing. In many instance, the officer was advised by his legal
department not to show up for the hearing. This happened to me the
first time I used the “refusal for cause” process,
and I
didn’t have to say a word before the judge dismissed the
case.
However, within a couple of years, the state court system had revised
the court procedure, not requiring the officer to show up at the
initial hearing which would quickly become an arraignment at which the
judge was asking for a plea to an unverified complaint, so that judges
could contract with and convict more innocent victims. Since most
people are unfamiliar with court procedure, anyone entering a plea,
when asked by the judge, automatically accepts the jurisdiction. In
this way, only subject matter jurisdiction was challengeable. What this
change in court procedure did was to allow a professional liar (the
judge) easy access to intimidate the alleged defendant into making a
mistake and accepting personam jurisdiction in the matter.
If the defendant refused to enter a plea at an arrainment hearing
without explaining a reason why – such as, for example, he
needed
first to consult with an attorney before he could determine whether to
enter a plea, which would buy some time for him to figure out what his
next move would be, since the judge would allow that request before
asking for the plea again in a subsequent hearing –
the
judge was obliged to enter a plea for him. One way or the other, the
legal system was bound and determined to win this battle of nerves. But
you had to know what you were doing before going in. They cannot ask
for or enter a plea for a defendant until
after the defendant
has had access to legal counsel when requested. You just have to know
to request this.
In addition to excusing the complaining officer from the initial
hearing, the state courts changed the way the hearing procedure began.
The judge would ask for the alleged defendant to provide his NAME for
the record. If the alleged defendant answered with a name similar to
the NAME on the citation, he automatically was
presumed
to have accepted the jurisdiction of the court. This happened to me
also, and it was frustrating because I knew that the judge knew that
there was a difference in capacity between the given name (which is
what I gave, First Middle) and the corporate NAME (First Last or First
Middle Last), but I didn't know how to show proof of the difference.
Once that deed (mistake) had been done, I was caught in their snare.
My point is, the legal system is constantly revising their procedures
and educating its judges in how to overcome certain objections in order
to disqualify those who are seeking a remedy, using whatever remedy is
the current flavor at the time. During
my
ordeal of fourteen months
battling three separate traffic citations, it was very frustrating to
try one remedy after the other and have them all fail for I
didn’t know the reason why. This is why rebutting the twelve
presumptions of court prior to the court date listed on the summons or
citation makes sense to me. Although I cannot claim firsthand knowledge
of the successful use of this process, I would not hesitate to use it
if pressed again.
So, let’s get down to a description and brief analysis of
each of these presumptions that must be rebutted.
First, we have to realize that the legal system has put in place these
twelve presumptions of court without any obligation to disclose them to
the public. How they get away with that other than pure arrogance and
corruption, I couldn’t say. As mentioned in the article
“
The
American Legal System Is Not What You Think It Is,”
the Bar attorneys and the judge have taken two oaths which conflict
with one another. In essence, each Bar member in the court holds two
capacities, one as an officer of the state, and the other as a member
of a private legal guild sworn to secrecy about how they go about their
business.
A Bar attorney’s first loyalty is to the legal guild, and
therefore they have a built in conflict of interest. Therefore, they
will endeavor to keep a traffic case on the private side of the ledger
while
pretending
that it is
on the public side. Since the attorneys and judges are both on the same
page with this set up, this is fairly easy for them to do. If anyone
calls them out on it, they just lie about it and say, “No,
this
is a pubic matter before the court. Not a private matter.”
This
is an important observation to keep in mind: they lie all the time.
Never forget that fact if you get dragged into court.
The only caveat to using this formal challenge of the presumptions of
law is that that document
must
first be recorded with the county recorder prior to the issuance of the
traffic citation.
It must first be in the public record. So, while you can try using it
in a current matter if you are involved in one before having recorded
that document, don’t be surprised if the court simply ignores
it.
It doesn’t necessarily make sense to me that this should be
so, a
challenge of presumptions ought to stand no matter when it is entered
and over and above the fact that it was recorded. But higher
authorities than myself have assured me that recordation is a must
prior to the issuance of a citation as it becomes standing public
notice to courts of one’s intent and status.
One other note, the document challenging the twelve presumptions of law
does not need to be notarized, but does need to be viewed as a verified
or certified statement. The suggested language for the verification of
the challenge is included in
the
attached PDF.
Also, do not forget to list this document on your Certificate of
Mailing along with the citation listing so that you have proof of
service.
The following information does not derive from any of my original first
hand knowledge but rather from research and the assumption that it
explains bitter personal experience. It arises from the research of an
Australian man named Frank O’Collins who, over the years, has
been tireless in looking into legal matters dealing with the Vatican.
So, if you have any doubt about its authenticity, he’s your
man
to ask questions. I’m only acting as a messenger to deliver
his
message and perhaps to explain it in a way that it can be better
understood. I have done my best to verify for myself everything he
says, and to verify the information published in whatever sources he
uses. If you wish to see one document attributed to Mr.
O’Collin’s authorship, the following PDF document
is titled
“
The
History of Today’s Slavery.”
You can look up on Wikipedia the Papal Bulls of Pope Boniface VIII (
Unam Sanctum in
1302) and Pope Nicholas V (
Romanus
Pontifex
in 1455) if you have any doubt about the authenticity of those
documents, using Internet sources to verify the history of the Papal
Bulls that have been issued down through history.
From what I’m given to understand, just as with the
“refusal for cause” process, it is
necessary to
return the summons or citation back to the presenter, by which doing
technically shows it to be what is called “abandoned
paper,” while sending a copy to the court with clear language
written on the citation refusing their offer to contract, along with a
notarized document rebutting the twelve presumptions that the court is
making without disclosing this to the public. Next we’ll take
a
look at the language used to describe this process.
The definition of a presumption is “an idea that is taken to
be
true on the basis of probability.” In other words, in court,
an
assertion that is being taken as a presumption is a presumption which
must be agreed to by the parties involved to be considered as true. If
one party challenges the presumption to be true on the basis of
probability, then all that is required to remove the presumption is a
formal challenge to that presumption. The presumption then has no
standing or merit in fact.
The next most important concept in this definition of a presumption is
the idea of “probability.” So what is a
probablity
and how does it fit into a challenge of the presumption? A probability
is defined as “the extent to which something is probable, the
likelihood of something happening or being the case.” By
definition, then, a probability has no substantive quality needing to
be proven. It is only a probability of what may be, and therefore
has no substance in material fact.
So how do these concepts relate to how a court must view such a
challenge to it’s presumptions?
A State court does not operate according to any true rule of law, but
rather by presumptions or by color of the law. Therefore, when you step
into court and do not immediately, before anything else, rebut the
presumptions of the private Bar Guild, then the presumptions stand as
true and are considered by the court to become facts in the case. It is
important to realize here that these presumptions cannot be rebutted
after
the fact, that is after one has had their first opportunity to rebut
them. Once that opportunity has slipped by and no one has rebutted
them, the presumptions become tied inextricably to the case, and
thereafter are said to stand as “Truth in
Commerce.” This
is how all these courts work.
As such, anyone attempting to enter a sworn certified statement
rebutting any one or several of the twelve presumptions without
rebutting them all at once, or an affidavit purporting to identify the
so-called defendant or any other material aspect of the matter, will
not be recognized by the court. The affidavit will be dismissed as
irrelevant by the court. Even if it makes a case for the redemption of
the defendant based upon the fact that it was not rebutted by the
plaintiff! As we have been taught, an affidavit stands as truth in
commerce if it is not rebutted. But in this case, because if even only
one of the twelve presumptions the Bar Guild is using to bring its case
is not rebutted, such an affidavit or certified statement will be
irrelevant, and therefore it is unnecessary for the plaintiff to rebut
it!
This is why the affidavits that we have been entering into court
seeking remedy have been ignored. It is because we have neglected to
rebut, at the outset of the matter before anything else, all twelve of
the presumptions being asserted by the Bar Guild. Therefore,
according to this information, the most important thing we can do, and
perhaps the
only
thing we
need do in addition to refusing the offer to contract, is to rebut the
twelve presumptions of the court. However, do not expect most
courts to just lie down and accept this refutation of their authority.
Some may in fact do so. Yet inevitably many courts (i.e., magistrates)
will continue to attempt to contract with their victim even after it
has been shown that the court has no authority to pursue the matter any
further. This is where it may be beneficial to pursue intimidation of
the judge by gently reminding him that he must recuse himself if he
refuses to bring forth his oaths of office.
Expect magistrates to use all their powers of intimidation to keep a
matter
appearing
to move forward. But no matter how many ways they attempt to intimidate
you, always remember one thing: there are only three ways these courts
can end up sending a person to jail or enforcing a final convicting
judgment on a “defendant.” Those three ways are
one, if you have an
attorney.
Two,
if you are incompetent. And
three,
if you sign something (like a plea agreement or a final judgment
outlining the penalties)! However, in order to avoid the intimidation
of a court, you may have to put up with some inconvenience in order to
call them on their bluff. I learned this trick from a man who gave a
seminar on law and explained in detail how this worked. Fortunately his
seminar was captured on video.
Readers may benefit from this man’s knowledge by viewing the
following video. It is suggested that you take the time to use a
computer and a rich text Wordpad file to transcribe the pertinent
sections of his talk so as to have it down in black and white where you
can study it, but also so as to not forget exactly what he said. The
details are important. This section of the video begins around the 45
minute mark and last for approximately fifteen minutes. The significant
part occurs about two minuted in from the 45 mark where he states that
there are three signatures needed to put you in jail: the judge's, the
prosecutor's,
and you or
your attorney's signature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kliFIvZl3mY
David Straight #2 of 8
David Straight Seminar in Chicago November 2019,
Ambassador for Christ Time: 1:11:21
You will need to think about this because sometimes a judge will put
you in detention (county jail) for up to two months just to get you to
sign. So you have to be willing to spend that time if you want to
object and not consent to their legal process.
Those who have studied and understand American history will know full
well why the Bar Guild is so hell-bent to keep everything on the
private side of a legal matter. It is because the public side invokes
the constitutional issues, and nothing the Bar Guild does can withstand
a constitutional challenge. This is because the organic Constitution
still exists in its original form and authority, and
supposedy still
stands in the way of foreign interference (
presumed
and unsubstantiated Admiralty claims) in our court system. I say
“supposedly” because no one can guarantee that a
court will
choose to recognized such challenges.
As briefly touched on in a previous article (
Concealment
of Material Facts Triggers Estoppel)
the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 was the point at which the
republic Union of States went out of being governed as a
de jure
representative republic and began being ruled as a
de facto
democracy (simple majority rule) under Admiralty and International law.
In the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 Congress incorporated a
second federal government separate and distinct from the previously
unincorporated original organic federal government of the republic,
thereby taking control of the government away from the people and
effectively making people (those who were uneducated and therefore
ignorant of what just took place to change the governing mechanism
within the country) the subjects of government.
The constitution that Congress created as their bylaws for its new
corporation mirrored the organic Constitution for the United States of
America, but without the protective teeth that the latter instrument
contained in terms of personal rights of the people and limitations on
the federal government’s ability to infringe those rights.
That
new constitution was in essence a
corporate
mission statement for the newly incorporated municipal
government of
the District of Columbia. This new government, entirely controlled by
the
de facto
United States Congress which created it and out of the hands of the
people and thereby bypassing the original organic Constitution, was
separate and superior to the District of Columbia Organization Acts of
1790 and 1801, the former of these two Acts of which initially formed
the territory of the original District of Columbia as the seat of the
federal government.
Therefore the original Constitution
for the United
States of America (1787) and its subsequent sister
constitution with its Bill of Rights, the Constitution
of the United
States of America (1789), because there was no quorum seated after
March 27, 1861 when the Congress adjourned
sine die,
have been temporarily suspended in favor of the United States
corporation created by the District of Columbia Act of 1871 under a
de facto
Congress masquerading as the original jurisdiction United States
Congress. (Those who wish to learn more about the specifics of these
Acts are encouraged to read about their history as explained in an
article The
District
of Columbia Act of 1871
which lays out the relatively complicated historical timeline of what
took place and the meaning of each Act in a relatively brief but
understandable manner.)
An interesting side note, as a result of these constitutional
shenanigans, every amendment to the United States corporate
constitution passed
after
its
creation in 1871 have no bearing or effect on the organic Constitution
of the United States of America which has sixteen amendments.
In
other words the two constitutions are separate documents referring to
two separate legal realities. The reason that the amendments in the
constitution for the incorporated District of Columbia Congressional
corporation do not apply to the organic Constitution is quite simple:
the corporate Congress has not the authority to amend the original
Constitution of the unincorporated United States of America.
There are twelve key presumptions asserted by the private Bar Guilds
which if unchallenged stand as true, those presumptions being: 1) the
Presumption of Public Record, 2) the Presumption of Public Service, 3)
the Presumption of Public Oath, 4) the Presumption of Immunity, 5) the
Presumption of Summons, 6) the Presumption of Custody, 7) the
Presumption of Court of Guardians, 8) the Presumption of Court of
Trustees, 9) the Presumption of Government acting in two roles as
Executor and Beneficiary, 10) the Presumption of Agent and Agency, 11)
the Presumption of Incompetence, and 12) the Presumption of Guilt.
Presently, we will examine each of these presumptions and
their rebuttal one at a time. This information is not my information
but rather is the fruit of my research, and used to be available at a
website called commonlawcourt.com. For
whatever reason, it is no longer there. But we preserved it at
the
following link to this PDF entitled
Exhibit-7.pdf.
1
The
Presumption of Public Record is that any matter brought
before a state Court is a matter for the public record
when in fact it is presumed by
the members of the private Bar Guild that the matter is a private Bar
Guild business matter.
Unless openly rebuked and rejected by stating clearly the matter is to
be on the Public Record, the matter remains a private Bar Guild matter,
completely under private Bar Guild rules;
I, John Smith, the
undersigned
formally challenge the Presumption of Public Record as it is by
definition a presumption and has no standing or merit in presentable or
material fact.
2.
The
Presumption of Public Service
is that all the members of the Private Bar Guild who have all sworn a
solemn secret absolute oath to their Guild then act as public agents of
the Government, or “public officials” by making
additional
oaths of public office that openly and deliberately contradict their
private “superior” oaths to their own Guild. Unless
openly
rebuked and rejected, the claim stands that these private Bar Guild
members
are legitimate
public servants and therefore trustees under public oath;
I, John Smith, the
undersigned
formally challenge the Presumption of Public Service as it is by
definition a presumption and has no standing or merit in presentable or
material fact.
3.
The Presumption of
Public Oath
is that all members of the Private Bar Guild acting in the capacity of
“public officials” who have sworn a solemn public
oath,
remain bound by that oath and therefore bound to serve honestly,
impartiality and fairly as dictated by their oath. Unless openly
challenged and demanded, the presumption stands
that the Private Bar Guild
members have functioned under their public oath in contradiction to
their Guild oath. If challenged,
such individuals MUST recuse
themselves as having a conflict of interest and cannot
possibly stand under a public oath;
I, John Smith, the
undersigned
formally challenge the Presumption of Public Oath as it is by
definition a presumption, and by definition has no standing or merit in
presentable or material fact.
4.
The
Presumption of Immunity
is that key members of the Private Bar Guild in the capacity of
“public officials” acting as judges, prosecutors
and
magistrates who have sworn a solemn public oath in good faith are
immune from personal claims of injury and liability.
Unless openly challenged and
their oath demanded,
the presumption stands that the members of the Private Bar Guild as
public trustees acting as judges, prosecutors and magistrates are
immune from any personal accountability for their actions;
I, John Smith, the
undersigned
formally challenge the Presumption of Immunity as it is by definition a
presumption, and by definition has no standing or merit in presentable
or material fact.
5.
The
Presumption of Summons is that by custom a summons
unrebutted stands and therefore one who attends Court
is presumed to accept a position
(defendant, juror, witness) and jurisdiction of the court.
Attendance to court is usually invitation by summons.
Unless the summons is rejected
and returned, with a copy of the rejection filed prior to choosing to
visit or attend, jurisdiction and position as the accused
and the existence of “guilt” stands;
I, John Smith, the
undersigned
formally challenge the Presumption of Summons as it is by definition a
presumption, and by definition has no standing or merit in
presentable or material fact.
6.
The
Presumption of Custody is that by custom a summons or
warrant for arrest unrebutted stands and therefore one who attends
Court
is presumed to be
a thing
and therefore liable to be detained in custody by
“Custodians”. Custodians may only lawfully hold
custody of
property and “things”
not flesh and blood soul
possessing beings. Unless this presumption is openly
challenged by rejection of summons and/or at court, the presumption
stands
you are a thing
and property and therefore lawfully able to be kept in
custody by custodians;
I, John Smith, the
undersigned
formally challenge the Presumption of Custody as it is by definition a
presumption, and by definition has no standing or merit in presentable
or material fact.
7.
The
Presumption of Court of Guardians
is the presumption that as you may belisted as a
“resident”
of a ward of a local government area and have listed on your
“passport” the letter P, you are a pauper and
therefore
under the “Guardian” powers of the government and
its
agents as a “Court of Guardians”. Unless this
presumption
is openly challenged to demonstrate you are both a general guardian and
general executor of the matter (trust) before the court, the
presumption stands and you are by default a pauper, and lunatic and
therefore must obey the rules of the clerk of guardians (clerk of
magistrates court);
I, John Smith, the
undersigned
formally challenge the Presumption of Guardians as it is by definition
a presumption, and by definition has no standing or merit in
presentable or material fact.
8.
The
Presumption of Court of Trustees is that members of the
Private Bar Guild
presume
you accept the office of trustee as a “public
servant” and “government employee”
just by attending a Roman Court, as such Courts are always for public
trustees by the rules of the Guild and the Roman System. Unless this
presumption is openly challenged to state you are merely visiting by
“invitation” to clear up the matter and you are not
a
government employee or public trustee in this instance, the presumption
stands and is assumed as one of the most significant reasons to claim
jurisdiction – simply because you
“appeared”;
I, John Smith, the
undersigned
formally challenge the Presumption of Trustees as it is by definition a
presumption, and by definition has no standing or merit in presentable
or material fact.
9.
The
Presumption of Government acting in two roles as Executor and Beneficiary
is that for the matter at hand, the Private Bar Guild appoints the
judge/magistrate in the capacity of Executor while the Prosecutor acts
in the capacity of Beneficiary of the trust for the current matter. If
the accused does seek to assert their right as Executor and Beneficiary
over their body, mind and soul
they
are acting as an Executor De Son Tort or a “false
executor” challenging the
“rightful” judge as Executor.
Therefore, the judge/magistrate assumes the role of
“true”
executor and has the right to have you arrested, detained, fined or
forced into a psychiatric evaluation. Unless this presumption is openly
challenged to demonstrate you are both the true general guardian and
general executor of the matter (trust) before the court, questioning
and challenging whether the judge or magistrate is seeking to act as
Executor De Son Tort, the presumption stands and you are by default the
trustee, therefore must obey the rules of the executor
(judge/magistrate) or you are an Executor De Son Tort and a judge or
magistrate of the private Bar guild may seek the assistance of bailiffs
or sheriffs to assert their false claim against you;
I, John Smith, the
undersigned
formally challenge the Presumption of Government acting in two roles as
Executor and Beneficiary as it is by definition a presumption, and by
definition has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact.
10.
The
Presumption of Agent and Agency is the presumption that
under contract law you have expressed and granted authority to the
Judge and Magistrate
through
the statement of such words as “recognise,
understand” or “comprehend”
and therefore agree to be bound to a contract. Therefore, unless all
presumptions of agent appointment are rebutted
through the use of such formal
rejections as “I do not recognise you”,
to remove all implied or expressed appointment of the judge, prosecutor
or clerk as agents, the presumption stands and you agree to be
contractually bound to perform at the direction of the judge or
magistrate;
I, John Smith, the
undersigned
formally challenge the Presumption of Agent and Agency as it is by
definition a presumption, and by definition has no standing or merit in
presentable or material fact.
11.
The
Presumption of Incompetence
is the presumption that you are at least ignorant of the law, therefore
incompetent to present yourself and argue properly. Therefore, the
judge/magistrate as executor has the right to have you arrested,
detained, fined or forced into a psychiatric evaluation. Unless this
presumption is openly challenged to the fact that you know your
position as executor and beneficiaryand actively rebuke and object to
any contrary presumptions, then it stands by the time of pleading that
you are incompetent then the judge or magistrate can do what they need
to keep you obedient.
I, John Smith, the
undersigned
formally challenge the Presumption of Incompetence as it is by
definition a presumption, and by definition has no standing
or
merit in presentable or material fact.
12.
The
Presumption of Guilt
is the presumption that as it is presumed to be a private business
meeting of the Bar Guild, you are guilty whether you plead
“guilty”,do not plead or plead “not
guilty”.
Therefore
unless you
either have previously prepared an affidavit
of truth and motion
to dismiss with extreme
prejudice onto the public record or call a demurrer,
then the presumption is you are guilty and the private Bar Guild can
hold you until a bond is prepared to guarantee the amount the guild
wants to profit from you.
I, John Smith, the
undersigned
formally challenge the Presumption of Guilt as it is by definition a
presumption, and by definition has no standing or merit in presentable
or material fact.
I formally challenge all
presumptions
of law and as I have formally challenged all the twelve presumptions of
law then the presumption of law formally has no substance in material
FACT.
I will recognise the rule
of law, when
and only when there is the material evidence of, that assumed rule of
law has some material evidence of substance in presentable material
fact.
Until then, the search
for the rule of law, that has some credibility in material fact
continues.
It is done.
Without ill will or vexation
_________________________________
John Smith
For and on behalf of the Legal Entity JOHN SMITH
and the living man, John Smith.
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.