the law vs. black folk
by, 07-01-2010 at 09:35 AM (12314 Views)
after 52 years of surviving in the u.s. and numerous run-ins with the police, courts, judges, jailers, attorney's and the like, i began to feel that i could not win in any confrontation with these people- in fact, i never did win. even when the 'evidence' was clearly in my favor, i recall the judge saying stuff like, "i don't believe you". hence, i was found guilty and had to pay a fine. as time passed (my first run-in was at the age of 16) the fines kept getting bigger and bigger and then they began adding surcharges and interest and it began to look like i would never pay some of these fines off... most of which were petty traffic violations; no license, no insurance, no registration, no turn on red etc... i was never accused of rape or robbery or murder- nothing violent but always treated and made to feel like i was a terrible person. so i began to hire attorneys to 'represent' me and i was still found guilty- i could not catch a break- until...
i began to look at what goes on in the courtroom- like most people, i did not have a clue... from the time i got the ticket to the time i had to pay the fine, i was shuffled from one line to the next until i was in the line at the cashier's window... after some research, this is what i discovered-
a traffic ticket is called in legal terms a "presentment" or "an offer to contract"... the supreme court held in a case called 'thompkins v. errie railroad' back in 1938- "no contract, no case"... in other words, thompkins sued the railroad for an injury he sustained while boarding a train owned by errie railroad, but because he did not have a contract the court found that he had no legal basis upon which to sue. now- here is the kick in the pants...
all traffic tickets are contract offers... if a person is travelling in their privately owned automobile to the store and they are stopped by a police officer for an infraction and issued a bill of attainder, that person has just been offered a contract.
no, you say... yes, i say...
there are some legal terms in the above paragraph- first, their is a big difference between travelling and driving. travelling is what you do in your privately owned auto- driving is what you do when you are hauling goods and providing services in a motor vehicle- a motor vehicle is a tractor trailer or some other motor vehicle that you need a commercial drivers' license to operate... in other words, you have to be engaged in commerce in order to be considered 'driving'- this is an important point.
so, going to the store or over a friends house or to church etc..., is not driving, even if you are speeding.
second, the contract- the bill of attainder can be rejected by the "offender" in a 72 hour period. in other words, you have 3 days to return the ticket to whomever gave it to you. the law says, "you can reject any contract offer in 72 hours"... you can put it in the mail, certified, after making a copy for your records and send it right back to the municipality from whence it came.
third, traffic infractions are not 'crimes'... they are exactly what they say they are, 'infractions'
just like statutes, proclamations, etc... these are not 'laws'. the creator made laws. man makes statutes etc... the creators laws must be obeyed (and i am not talking about the ten commandments- some made up jewish dude named moses with roman (italian) numerals on two tablets of stone... b.s.) i am talking about mentalism, vibration, gender, harmony etc...(the laws we obey wheather we choose to or not).
fourth, jurisdiction: there are at least two kinds of jurisdiction- personal and subject matter. personal jurisdiction is what you grant to a court when the judge says, "how do you plead?"
ask yourself, "what is a plea?" it seems to me that anyone entering a plea is asking the court to do something- it is that request of the court that grants them (you give them permission) the right to proceed. subject matter jurisdiction is what the judge is writing up on the bench as you stand before him or her. they are also taking out bonds in your name which are sold on wall street. subject matter jurisdiction consists of the following: two opposing parties (the police officer does not qualify), damaged property, injured party, warrant signed by a judge or probable cause... if any of these are missing from the court record, the judge cannot legally go forward unless... you don't know the law!!!
now- allow me to sum it all up...
get a legal dictionary (black's law, 6th edition or older- supreme court uses bouvier's 1856 edition) and look up some of the words on the ticket- especially the part about "you must appear"... look up 'must' and 'appear'. you will be shocked at the definition of these words- they are not what you think. they have tricked us by changing the definition of words in the legal context.
the two most important phrases you can speak in traffic court are these: i reserve my common law rights and i challenge subject matter jurisdiction. when you reserve your common law rights you place yourself in the private venue- when you challenge subject matter jurisdiction you hit the ball back into the prosecutors' court, forcing him/her to prove from the court record that subject matter jurisdiction exists.
i hope this helps anyone who has had problems similar to those i have had... i welcome any comments.
the first thing that happens in the legal context is: your name is changed! e.g., John Africa and JOHN AFRICA are not the same. your name is John Africa... this spelling adheres to the rules of english grammar- this is the spelling used whenever you autograph something, anything; any document at all. when the courts address 'you' they are adressing a 'legal fiction' named JOHN AFRICA. a legal fiction is a corporation, a person, or an individual... the court, by its' very nature, cannot address a man or woman. a corporation has to interact with another corporation- this is the reason for the change. a court is a corporation... and so is JOHN AFRICA. look at the bills that come to your home and check the spelling from your power, gas, phone, and water company. also check your car note and mortgage... all will read JOHN AFRICA- all the bills that come in your name will read that way. why...??? because John Africa is a man and JOHN AFRICA is a person, individual and corporation.
after giving a little more thought to the difference between John Africa and JOHN AFRICA, it occurred to me that these are homonyms... remember those from school...??? words that sound the same and have the same spelling but have different meanings... that is what they (the courts) have done. they have turned our names into labels and they have associated that label with a number. the label (name) is actually a title in the legal sense, like a car title. the title can have a lien placed on it and then the 'property' to which the title belongs can be repossessed or impounded. that is what happens when you are arrested. now, when you are 'booked' you have the option of not opening your mouth... it is extremely necessary for the police to get 'YOU' to give them your name (title)- without this important piece of information (you must 'inform' on yourself) you make it extremely difficult for them- when you make your first 'appearance' before the judge if he/she does not have the right paperwork in 3 days- they are 'supposed' to let you go...
check this out!
what they have done with this word is very interesting. if you, as an individual, are being divided into two and one half is obviously a man or woman, then what is the other half...??? a corporation!!! check out the legal definition of person, individual and corporation and you will find that they mean virtually the same thing. in other words, a man/woman can be a corporation but a corporation cannot be a (womb)man.
one of the defenses that a (womb)man can use is the 'that isn't me' defense. it is tricky, but it can be used effectively. the most effective defense, i think, is the non-consentual defense. the 'i ain't goin' for the okey-doke', which, once you get the hang of what they are doing, is really all that is going on... they gain your consent through trickery and deceit; once you know the tricks you won't easily fall into the trap.
consider also, the courts' "help". when the judge asks you, "how do you plead"...??? you should never, never, never enter a plea. always respond by saying, "i reserve my common law rights"... now, you must know (because the judge may ask you) what your common law rights are- "I HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO CONTRACT WITH YOU"... i mentioned somewhere that statutory law as well as maritime admiralty law is based solely upon contracts. typically, the courts next move will be to "enter a plea of not guilty on your behalf". if they are allowed to do this, reserving your common law rights will be of none effect. your response to the courts' help should sound something like, "I DO NOT CONSENT TO THAT"... grasp the idea that these statements must be repeated each and everytime that you are challenged- because the first time you are silent when you should speak up, they've won. this is not a game- the stakes are high- we have been losing for a long time- it is time we started to win.
when you are asked to enter a plea to a charge, essentially, you are being asked to enter a contract with the court which states you agree with the 'validity' of the 'statute' to which you are being charged with breaking. in other words, your 'plea' states to the court, "i enter into this contract with this court (corporation) of my own free will and accord and i submit to the courts' authority". from that point forward you are treated as a 'ward' of the court or an adolescent or someone who is mentally deficient... hiring an attorney accomplishes this authority for the court as well because an attorney is an officer of the court and his/her first duty is to the court; next to him or herself to make money and finally to you the 'client'. the distinction made by the court can be found in the documentation... a 'pro se' litigant is someone who requires a 'pro se cutor'... this 'person' is stripped of his/her rights and granted privileges... these privileges can be upheld or shot down at the whim of the 'judge'. these privileges are granted to 'citizens' which were created by the fourteenth amendment to the constitution when slavery was abolished in the u.s.a.,... a 'pro per' litigant is someone who stands before the corporation (court) in their 'proper person' outside the jurisdiction of the statutes, acts, ordinances etc... and reserves all of their inalienable rights endowed by their creator.
it is necessary to keep in mind, 'your right to contract'... this is the big secret that the court is working overtime to make sure you never discover. most questions asked of you by the court are designed to garner your expressed consent- without your knowing it... it is the 'word games' that the court plays with you that are used to accomplish this- where the definitions of words are not what you think they are. e.g., "are you a united states citizen...???" most of us would answer 'yes' to this question. but, just look at the definition of united states and citizen in the legal context and you will discover why the i.r.s. is so successful in taking your money... (another blog) your positive response to this question in a courtroom will be very damaging to you- you have just contracted with the court!!! how do you avoid entering a contract...???
there are four 'secrets' to be exposed, discovered or revealed to our people that will assist us in keeping more of our 'property' (money) in our own pockets instead of being tricked into giving it away to the courts. keep in mind that this dissertation is designed to inform- it does not read like an essay (forgive me for the herky jerky way in which it comes off). also, i do NOT advocate confronting police officers... they carry weapons and have been known to use them with little or no provocation... most of what i am writing about takes place in the courtroom- not on the street. i advise my 24 year old son to avoid such confrontations- wait until you get home... sit down in front of your computer with your 6th edition BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY and kick their ass...
1) most courts, including municipal, county, state and federal, have no judicial authority to hear a case... without the proper jurisdiction in the court record, any judgement/decision is 'VOID' on it's face.
2) 'annotated statutes' are the 'holdings' of the court and tell what a statute means- in other words, the impact or effect of the statute itself is 'felt' in the annotated statute.
3) attorneys 'CANNOT' testify... their statements are not facts before the court and in cases where there is no 'competent fact witness' the attorney who opposes you can be silenced relatively easily... e.g., object to the attorneys' speech and inform the court that the attorney should 'testify' under oath and their full commercial liability and penalty of perjury...
4) subject matter jurisdiction: the court must have, an appearance or testimony of a 'competent fact witness', an injured party or two parties with the capacity to enter testimony into the court record.
another phrase that we should always preface our remarks to the court with is: "ON AND FOR THE RECORD"... this makes the judge extremely angry- e.g., 'on and for the record, i motion the court to dismiss this charge for want of subject matter jurisdiction'... in the allocution phase of a court hearing, speaking these words will not guarantee the successful dismissal of the case but will put in the court record that the charge 'should have been dismissed' (speaking of traffic court violations such as speeding)... then it is a simple matter of standing your ground and telling the judge that you do not accept the courts' decision etc...
with/without prejudice... this phrase is used by judges to indicate their level of hostility toward you the 'defendant'... a high level of hostility is indicated in the phrase 'with prejudice' - 'without prejudice' indicates hostility to a lessor degree... you may use this phrase when instructing the court to dismiss charges you have successfully defeated so as to discourage prosecutors from 'retrying' you, the defendant. (yes- they can come back at you if 'prejudice' is not specified by the judge when dismissal is granted)...
labels also, achieve jurisdiction for the court. mr., mrs., miss, ms., are all labels which garner jurisdiction... labels the court uses are not limited to those included in this blog but far exceed those which i have listed. get used to the idea of being a man/woman and nothing more... you live and breathe wherever you happen to be- you do not 'reside' anywhere; you are not a 'resident' of any particular 'address'- these are all labels that are used against us... name, address and date of birth are information that you do not have to give; as stated in the 'miranda' ruling: you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law... so, why give them your name, address and date of birth...??? additionally, if i am not mistaken, 'YOU' must now state to the police that you are invoking your fifth amendment right to remain silent... now, here is where it gets tricky-
when asked by a judge, "is your name JOHN AFRICA...???" you cannot remain silent because silence in legal terms is called, 'tacit agreement'. which means if you do not speak up it is assumed that you are in 'agreement' with whatever is being said... so, you must say something- your response should be what is called in legal speak, 'conditional acceptance'; this is an important point...
there are four points to consider when standing in front of a 'judge' or four strategies to use when speaking in a courtroom setting... first, silence: as i mentioned, this is a no no- second, argument: this too, is undesirable; it invites controversy. the court can only enter into a controversy in order to render a judgement or in legalese, 'adjudication'... where there is no controversy there can be no 'judgement'- case closed... third, agreement: this is like pleading guilty... nothing complicated about that. finally, conditional acceptance: this is the only response that can keep you out of the courts' jurisdiction... e.g. (for example),"is your name JOHN AFRICA...???" reply: i will give you my name upon proof of claim that a controversy exists concerning my name... the judge will likely come at you again (most often, the judge will either be sugary sweet or extremely angry) "it is a simple question MR. AFRICA, please answer the question for the record..." now, he has very cleverly put you in a corner- how would you respond and at the same time stay out of controversy...??? it is at this point that you 'should' remain silent- if you answer to the label 'MR.', they've got you... or... you can employ a strategy called 'negative averment'. i shall explain...
as a child, do you remember when someone asked you a question that you did not want to answer...??? what would you do...??? you would turn the question back on them- e.g., 'what is your name'...??? answer: 'why do you want to know'...??? 'tell me why you want to know and i will tell you my name'... or, 'is my name any of your concern'...??? tell me your concern and i will tell you my name'... and on and on and on children will go- back and fourth... this is a very powerful strategy that is beaten out of us- we are told, never answer a question with a question- it is rude...!!! but in a courtroom setting, it is perfectly legitimate and very powerful...
traffic tickets and traffic court can be thought of in this way: when you got to a restaurant and the waiter brings you a menu and you place an order... that is what is happening in court- if what is brought to your table and placed before you is not pleasing to you, you do not have to eat it... send it back to the kitchen...!!!; get up from the table and leave... let's say that you did not like the smell or the way it looked. it doesn't matter what the problem with it was... don't accept it, period. all of the aforegoing is on the menu down to the courthouse... a bunch of b.s.,... are you going to eat it...??? or are you going to cross off all of the items on the menu, one by one...??? i can go through each item ad infinitum...
but the concept that i am blogging about is honor/dishonor- acceptance- silence- argument and conditional acceptance.
...back to the restaurant-
you can say nothing at all to the waiter and just sit there and pout like a five year old- you can argue with the waiter because they brought you a steak cooked rare and you ordered it well done. you can accept the steak 'as is' even though you don't like bloody meat- but you still have to pay for it. you can tell the waiter that you will accept the steak if he cooks it as you like. these are your choices- don't let anyone tell you different. when you know what's up, you don't have to limit yourself to the choices that they want to give you (guilty, not guilty, no contest)... don't go for the okey doke...!!!!
peace be upon you
Total Trackbacks 0