Tuesday, August 18, 2015

The Law Explained: Session 10 – Testimony & Evidence

Please download MP3 Audio Broadcast of this Blog > here   (85 min 29 Mb)

Hello, this is Frank O’Collins and welcome to Session 10 of the series on The Law Explained and the topic tonight being Testimony and Evidence and why your word and what you say is arguably the most important evidence of any controversy. Tonight, I will also be revealing the design of Affidavits and why Affidavits are such a vitally important form of evidence in addressing matters efficiently and practically to modern Western-Roman Courts.

As each session of this series on the Law Explained is like giving you crucial pieces of the puzzle, tonight is no exception. I have continued to provide to you practical knowledge within each session and tonight the same will be happening when we specifically speak about the form, function and design of Affidavits as well as how to conduct yourself and your testimony when facing difficult circumstances within the present system.

Because of this, it is vital that you have taken the time to read all the previous blogs and slides and listened to the previous nine audios before tackling the blog tonight on Testimony and Evidence. So if you have not yet had the opportunity to read and listen to this series in chronological order, I encourage you to do so first, otherwise the full effect and significance of what I will be discussing tonight will not be the same.

To those of you that have persisted to this point in this series on the Law Explained, let me thank you with all my heart and spirit! What an extraordinary journey it has been! When we started this series a few months ago, the issues of how do we stand up and honor the Golden Rule of Law midst such madness and such corruption, seemed weak and half-hearted; and when we had previously spoken about the power of enforcement or how to overcome such automated cruelty, the chances of success seemed slim at best. Indeed, it could be argued by some that even to try to live an honorable life in such a dishonorable world at present seemed futile. I have had numerous messages from good people, who, after suffering greatly have felt this way and in a sense it is hard to blame anyone losing trust that anything can change for the better. But just look at how much we have learned! Look at how much power and strength we have been able to draw upon through the truth of knowledge and irrefutable evidence; and in reminding ourselves of our immortal presence.

Living in honor of the Golden Rule of Law isn’t weakness – it is strength. The proper Rule of Law doesn’t abandon us as we are empowered to uphold it. Nor can any tyrant or its corrupt system avoid the fact that if such a system chooses to pretend to be law, it cannot avoid certain essential basics – basics that we have fully exposed and shown as the critical weaknesses of an unjust and broken system.

I also want to express my deepest thanks to all of you that have shown the foresight and the common sense to recognize the strength, not weakness of the Ucadia Model and that any donation and support is in reality merely an investment in your future and our collective well-being. Every donation is recorded and reflected in an equal amount of Ucadia Moneta Units. No one is being asked to give up valuable units of energy for the sake of Ucadia. Like everyone else, Ucadia is bound by the temporal limits of debt-based money systems; and so funds of such currencies are essential for the discharge of debts and obligations in finishing and developing the model. If you want to know more, then go and have a look at Article 27 in the Constitutional Charters of such sites as Americas Union, or Euro Union or Oceanic Union on Founding Members to see what I am speaking about.

All accounts and account statements of donations are strictly private and will start to be uploaded to your personal and secure account login by the end of this year. All I ask each and everyone who comes to listen and to read the blog tonight is to consider when reading Article 27 and thinking about donation deposits to Ucadia; and whether you feel Ucadia remains a greater risk than any existing savings plans you have with Western-Roman Banks; and the growing examples of funds seizures, bank crisis, fees and charges? If you keep 100% of your credits in Western-Roman banks, then you remain 100% convinced in that model to some extent. In contrast, what could the empowerment of Ucadia do with some of those units, particularly when everything is reflected in Ucadia Moneta and redeemable back into foreign debt currencies as we move forward? 

Tonight then is about delivering on the promises made to you in showing just how powerful your own voice and your testimony is; and that when you take control of your voice and your testimony, then you can also overcome the sense of helplessness of a system that seems on auto-pilot as it pushes ahead in destroying the lives and life savings of so many people.

Before we start, let us have a look at a brief summary of what we discussed last week.

Part #1 – Quick Review on Key Concepts

Page 3 – Review of Key Points from Session 9

Last week, we revealed a tremendous amount about the Pseudo Modern Courts and why – unfortunately, there is virtually nothing that can be trusted as being true within their legal process, as virtually everyone is operating on auto-pilot completely ignorant of how it actually works.

English Law has been fake for more than 200+ years. None of it can be properly trusted;

There is no rule of law (for more than 400 years), no justice (since 1840s), no proper accounting (since 1960’s), no due process (since 1980’s) and complete incompetence (since 1990’s)

There exists huge cognitive dissonance between what judges, police, attorneys, politicians and clerks think they know as occult knowledge, versus the “official public version” and then there is the truth as to how it actually operates;

No-one has any real competence in the tens of millions of laws – everyone is faking their knowledge to some degree. Judges have cheating manuals and have become largely actors; and

Statutes, even codes and procedures have become irrelevant as computer companies now driving the procedure of law as automation of the fourth Reich continues without any legitimacy; and

Modern Pseudo Courts are not courts of law anymore, but bond exchanges and designed to make money; and

There are a minimum of 3 trusts per court case – Fraud (issue) Trust, Fiduciary Bond Trust and Surety Bond Trust. None of this is properly divulged to the accused; and

Modern pseudo court procedures are based on fallacy, perfidy and malice and have nothing to do with law. It has become complete madness and institutional organized crime.

The only viable solution for restoration of Law is Ucadia.

As sad as this summary is upon the state of so many of our present societies, we also touched on how such knowledge is empowering in allowing us to comprehend the minds of judges and magistrates, as well as clerks and attorneys and police officers and sheriffs. For the first time we can be clear just how they think, what their world is presently like and the massive cognitive dissonances that keep them trapped and isolated within their spheres of automation.

Page 4 – What is Truth?

We also touched on the power such knowledge brings in terms of exposing the perfidy and fallacies once and for all, given there are essential concepts that even the most corrupt and insane system cannot disavow. One of these is “truth” as we list again on slide 4.

As we have said in previous blogs on this series of the Law Explained, Truth is nothing more than “trust that something is as it is claimed to be”.  In other words, depending upon the apparent trustworthiness and level of conviction of the one claiming by Testimony something to be true, we may or may not assume a similar level of trust. Thus media and show business and superficiality are essential to promoting the fiction of truth of the present world.

No matter how many times I explain that we are merely dealing with a renegade band of merchants, bankers and lawyers trying to hold together the crumbling Fourth Reich, who do not respect or honor Lucifer, or even represent the majority of the global elite, there are many that think the present system is the brainchild of some kind of perfect pyramidal structure of power – it isn’t. The present bankers of Wall Street and legal firms with multi-national corporations are holding the world hostage – threatening to destroy everything if their power or immunity is ever questioned. Is this not obvious?

Similarly, no matter how many times I have shown the prison model of multiple layers of concepts designed to imprison our minds from cultural and drug and media prison, to finance and money prison, to law and military and fear prison, to religious and supernatural prison, for some reason people either pretend the prison doesn’t exist or they think that they and they alone can be the “Great Houdini” and escape such a prison, even when they don’t know how many walls exist, or have any clue of its counter measures or arguments – and most importantly, then the escape route via the Live Borne Record of Ucadia has already been created for you.

Page 5 – What is Fact?

Another key concept the system cannot avoid as being fundamental is the notion of fact, as demonstrated again on slide 5, namely “a testimony of claimed evidentiary proof of some past event, usually in written form”. Again, we see the significance and central role of the word Testimony as well as Evidence playing a part not only with the notion of truth, but the notion of fact.

Page 6 – What is Reality?

Reality is yet another of the essential concepts that the present system cannot avoid, as shown on slide 6, namely that “reality is to assert a thing or notion or claim is factually true and so can be trusted without doubt”. To establish something as real, a combination of the ideas of truth, usually in the form of Testimony, combined with Facts, such as Exhibits are used to assert a thing or notion of claim is factually true; and therefore may be trusted as genuine, without reasonable doubt. Do you see how these concepts are front and center of the notion of law and evidence, even before we discuss testimony and evidence in more detail?

Page 7 – What is Validity?

Then we have the notion of Validity, as per slide 7, whereby “validity is a claim that is victorious against an opposing idea within a forum for such a contest” – like a court.

There you see three of the oldest and most common forms of contest and trial, namely a trial by combat, the trial by entertainment and the trial by inquisition – with all three techniques still used by the modern legal system today.

Page 8 – The law is necessarily fictional

Before we discuss Testimony and Evidence in more detail, it is also important to remind ourselves yet again that the Law is necessarily fictional, as per slide 8. That is not a bad thing – it is a fact of nature. Indeed, any form of attempt of accurate memorialization of past events, for whatever reason requires some level of “re-creation” of past events, in order to comprehend their chronology, their relation and their conclusion. It is why the philosophy of “legal realism” that has been the basis of “dumbing down” lawyers for more than 100 years is a complete oxymoron and absurdity. There is no such thing as legal realism; and there can be no such thing as legal realism; and every book and paper and course ever written about such a notion is an injury to the true history of jurisprudence of law.

Page 9 – Law always involves the tribunal of persons

Another concept that people sometimes get tricked into thinking is somehow intrinsically “evil”, is the notion of "person" and the fact that law always involves the tribunal of "persons" as per slide 9.

Think about it for a moment. Excluding deeper discussions of moral philosophy and whether personal identity is a good or a bad thing, if we did not have three personal perspectives within language, then it would be impossible to describe objective relation between “I, me, my” and “you, yours and yourself” and “he, she, they or them”. 

The very notion of objective thought requires the presence in session of a mental forum of consciousness of at least three persons – (1) the one asking the question, or “accuser”; then (2) the one that is the subject or answerer, or “accused”; and (3) finally the witness to the mental argument being sufficiently independent to conclude a rational thought. 

Even psychology for all its faults, accepts the essential notion of a tripartite model of mind, as explored by Freud of the id, the ego and superego – even if this is a deliberate corruption and distortion of the philosophies of Aristotle and Plato on the Tribunal of Mind of pronoia, metanoi and epinoia.

It is no wonder that the sacrament of penance or “confession” as defined by Catholic Doctrine speaks of the Tribunal of Penance as a properly constituted forum of law or “court of conscience” whereby a man or woman is at once the accuser, the accused and the witness – with all other parties then merely evidentiary witnesses to such an admission.

And as I demonstrated last week, when such trusts are created as the backbone for financial advantage within the Pseudo Modern Courts, it is no mystery why the notion of every court case being the formal act of penance is chosen ¬– the only person you can represent is Pro-Se short for “pro se in rem” or “I am a thing; I am surety”.

Why? Because as the diagram on the trusts last week demonstrated, if your name (for example is J. Smith, then the judge is sitting there as J. Smith in propria persona as “principal”; and the prosecutor is sitting there as J. Smith, the agent or agentis juris or sui juris; leaving you only being able to stand as J. Smith “pro se”.

Remember the scenes from the Matrix as public disclosure – in every court case where you are accused, when you appear in the court for that matter – every key player in that courtroom is named “Smith”.

Page 10 – Law always involves form, cause and action

Finally, as per slide 10, Law always involves form, cause and action to proceed. There must always be the written testimony in some form of the accuser and unless the accuser is making a confession and accepting the debt, liability and surety for themselves, the accuser cannot also be the role of accused or prime witness.

Furthermore, there must be some formal outline of alleged misdeed and essential facts – being the facts that need to be proven. Finally, there is the action in law reflecting the rights of the accuser to remedy or relief. 

If a person possesses a right of action, then the standard process must include an affidavit of the accuser, the affidavit of at least one witness, an indictment and a citation.

If a person only possesses a right of exception, then the standard process must include a statement of the claimant, the claim, the affidavit of at least one witness or admission by the accused of a debt, and then the formal complaint.

If a person possesses neither a right of action nor the right of exception, then the standard process must include a memorandum of facts and arguments, a prayer for relief in “equity” and some formal petition.

As you will see in a moment, the only way a broken and corrupt and false system gets away with circumventing these steps, such as issuing a citation without any accompanying affidavit or facts of indictment is when the system presumes you have already confessed. We will speak some more about this in a moment.

Page 11 – The Ucadia Criminal Code is tougher on Crime

But before we go too much further, given the sensitivity of the discussions last week and this week, I want to point out on slide 11 the fact that the Ucadia Criminal Code that you can read on any of the Ucadia Union sites such as Americas Union or Euro Union or Oceanic Union etc. is tougher on crime than the present system. I make this point to clearly take the wind out of the sails of any propaganda merchants that might seek to perversely argue that such discussions as the Law Explained Series undermines confidence in law.

The truth of the existing broken and pseudo system of law of most western countries held hostage by a few special interests is that the wealthy can buy their freedom and continue to act with impunity, whilst everyone else is held accountable. For example, look at the debate on big corporate tax avoidance versus the clamp down on the middle class and the poor on not paying taxes. In the United States alone, it is estimated that if companies that made huge profits from selling goods and services to Americans paid the rate of tax according to the law and expectations of the public, then the entire current account deficit would be paid off in one year and there would be no more need to cut essential services, or education or health or welfare. In the United Kingdom and in Europe, if big corporations were forced to pay the tax they are supposed to pay in those countries, then instead of the austerity measures, countries such as Greece would have tens of billions of Euros in credit to spend on welfare, getting people back to work and on fixing broken services.

However, under the Ucadia Criminal Code, no one is above the law and all are equal before the law. Unlike the present system, false testimony is considered one of the most serious crimes and no one may use the law for profit or advantage.

Page 12 – The Ucadia Police Code gives better police powers

Slide 12 also reinforces the key point that when it comes to restoring confidence in police trying to protect and service the public, the Ucadia Police Code actually gives police better powers. Indeed, Ucadia is not about weakening the law, but restoring and strengthening the law and anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant of these facts, or active as an agent for the same narrow special interests like the ones who that are holding our collective future and our planet hostage to their madness.

Police shouldn’t be there to simply raise revenue.  The communities expect police to help maintain law and order but most importantly to help reduce crime and protect the community. Yet when you look at such a perverse world where more than a trillion dollars is wasted protecting the vested interests of big pharma in making synthetic pain killers while making virtually all forms of naturally grown pain killers illegal through the fake“war on drugs” – no wonder police get caught up in corruption and sordid deals – just look at the black money in the economy because of this abhorrent circumstances.

Ucadia will end the monopoly of big pharmaceutical companies – who by the way are part of the same group of companies not paying their fair share of taxes – in the field of synthetic and artificial pain killers by restoring and licensing the reintroduction of naturally grown pain killers. The issue of addiction and public order and health are separate issues and the argument that somehow breaking the monopoly of a few companies making hundreds of billions of dollars while naturally grown pain killers fuel an illegal drugs trade is the height of stupidity and only people completely without reason or working for these vested interests could possibly continue to make such cruel and evil and stupid arguments against the future of our societies.

We have to stop the situation where such lies and deliberate falsities are allowed to continue to dictate public policy; and where court cases are run on lies; and people and witnesses are allowed to lie and no respect is given to the truth, or trust or true moral decency. Only Ucadia can restore this balance and that is why I want to make this clear in respect of the practical on the ground application of codes of law.

Part #2 – Evidence

Page 14 – What is Evidence?

It is now time to review briefly the notion of Evidence and what exactly is Evidence? Please have a look at slide 14. Here, Evidence is defined as “any accepted means in argument employed for the purpose of proving one or more alleged facts, whereby the truth is established or disproven. Evidence may be Judicial (public) or Extra-Judicial (private or personal).”

So, unlike the broader notion of “proof”, Evidence is narrower and relates to only those kinds of Proof that are permitted to be presented within a particular jurisdiction of a particular forum of law. 

In other words, cast your mind back a few minutes when we were discussing the idea of Validity as the forum of trial to prove some form of artificial reality using truth and fact: What this definition difference between proof and evidence demonstrates is that there exist certain “House Rules” in any forum of trial and contest in deciding what is accepted or denied as evidence. Even if the proof is overwhelming, an establishment for the purpose of law can cast it out often on the most spurious of reasons, much like a private members club may decline entry to someone wearing runners, or not wearing a jacket.

This is precisely why I have seemed so hard on you and anyone listening when I have cautioned constantly against the danger of throwing huge reams of paper and arguments at the court because of some claimed guru remedy. Almost certainly, such gobbledygook will only make matters manifestly worse for you and will not be accepted into the record of evidence.

Page 15 – The Law of Evidence

Slide 15 provides more meat to the necessity of evidence to be relevant in the idea of the Law of Evidence, namely that “Facts of evidence” may be defined as either Principal Facts (facta probanda) or Evidentiary Facts (facta probantia).

Principal Facts (facta probanda) or “Facts in Issue” are those facts that are required to be proved. They are called Facts in Issue because these facts are usually the backbone of any matter of controversy and therefore essential to be proven.

For example: a logical Fact in Issue in a murder case is to first prove a murder has been committed. This is also usually the Principal Fact and therefore the “Issue”. Agreement or no-contest on Issue is called Joinder in Issue.

So with any indictment and criminal matter brought against you, there must be one Principal Fact that is assumed to be true for each charge and then possibly one or more other Principal Facts assumed to be true as part of the indictment, even if yet to be conclusively proven.

Evidentiary Facts (facta probantia) or “Facts in Evidence” are those facts given in evidence with the view of proving Facts in Issue. These are facts normally entered during the course of a hearing or trial and not part of the initial disclosure with any citation, complaint or petition. Circumstantial evidence is a more common description of facta probantia or “Facts in Evidence” whereby one or more inferences may be concluded via circumstantial evidence leading to the logical conclusion of a Principal Fact (facta probanda) or “Facts in Issue”.

If I use the example of an alleged murder, then in the absence of a body, the presence of sufficient amounts of blood, or types of blood loss or tissue matter leading to the expert opinion that the victim could not have logically survived the trauma, is often sufficient circumstantial evidence to conclude the Primary Fact that a murder has been committed.

Page 16 – Major categories of Judicial Evidence

Slide 16 then defines the major categories of Judicial Evidence being Direct and Indirect.

Direct Evidence is where the fact proven or “evidentiary fact” or “principal fact” is the Fact in Issue. 

Indirect Evidence is where the existence of the fact in issue is inferred. Such evidence is either (1) conclusive as a necessary consequence of laws of nature or rule of law; or (2) circumstantial where it rests on a greater or lesser degree of probability, as in the case I earlier explained when real forensic evidence is sometimes used to infer a logical conclusion.

As far as the types of evidence, there are a wide variety of names and terms used. However, eight major categories can reliably be considered as the core sources of evidence being real or physical, documentary, testimony, data, DNA, multimedia, falsities and expert opinion.

Before we continue, I want to briefly explain the notion of falsities being evidence. Essentially, what we are talking about is a recorded inconsistency usually in previous testimony or statements of a witness or the accused or sometimes even in the testimonies of the prosecution case, where it can be reliably inferred that the witness has deliberately and willfully acted in a perfidious and misleading manner. Sometimes, the falsities are sufficiently great to enable certain evidence to be stricken from the record. However, in most cases, the claimed falsities are sufficient to discredit evidence and thus weaken a defense or prosecution.

Now, the reason I mention this is because in the case of the role of police officers, that I will be discussing in a moment, you will see that gathering evidence of falsities through inconsistent statements is one of their core duties to the courts, apart from trying to gain confessions as well as arguments of agreed contractual obligation – particular in surety for charges.

Part #3 – Testimony

Page 18 – What is Testimony?

This leads us then to slide 18 and the question of what exactly is Testimony? Testimony may be simply defined as a “Declaration of first hand or expert evidence of the accuser, or the accused or the witness, made under oath or affirmation concerning a given matter.”  Notice, the definition of Testimony no longer must be viva voce or given by voice, but say in the case of Affidavits – that we will be discussing in a moment – may be provided in writing.

Despite the blizzard of information about evidence deliberately trying to play down testimony as just one of several sources, let me prove to you how central the notion of testimony has always been in law.

The word testimony comes from the Latin term testimonium that literally means “evidence”. In other words, the only real evidence is testimony and testimony is the only real evidence, with all other evidence being evidence in fact or circumstantial to support testimony.

Now in case you are confused and feel that I am contradicting every modern law dictionary in the planet, let me show you how they have devalued the ancient notion of testimony as a solemn declaration to some kind of brief and torrid episode like “Jeopardy” or the “Jerry Springer Show”.

In a modern court, no one gives testimony - other than the opening and closing address of the prosecutor and the defense and the judge. Everyone else gives depositions. The one who takes the stand is a deponent and depositions can and are frequently challenged. In fact the notion of a deposition is admitted to being an oral examination through interrogatories, rather than being an oral declaration – so any argument that claims a deposition is equivalent to an uninterrupted solemn declaration is absurd.

So why the deception by the modern pseudo courts? What are they trying to hide with testimony? Well, let me show you. Remember last week when I revealed that not one, or two but three secret trusts are formed for any serious criminal case and that under the first trust being the “fraud trust” or “issue trust” that the judge is sitting as principal and J. Smith, while the prosecutor is acting as the agent J. Smith and you are merely the res or thing as beneficial holder as J. Smith?

It means when the prosecutor as J. Smith opens his or her mouth and makes a formal declaration at the start of the hearing or trial, this is valid testimony. Unless challenged, by better testimony, it is going to stand above all other evidence no matter what you do. But how can you, when as a defendant representing yourself, the court seeks to do everything to discredit your evidence and convert any formal declaration into a mere deposition? The answer is in the proper formation of Affidavits prior to ever entering a court. Yet before we get there, we need to have a look at practical examples of testimonial evidence and how we might respond, especially keeping in mind the role of Police Officers in respect to court cases and arguments.

Page 19 – Police Obtained Testimony

On slide 19, we look at the three most common methods in obtaining testimony by police officers through visitation, detainment and formal interviews.

The three arguments for detainment being – (1) computer alert or the production from the police cruiser printer of some warrant or argument for arrest and detainment; or (2) the presence of probable cause; or finally (3) the use of fishing expeditions to find probable cause and charge people.

I also list the three key goals of police in such processes, namely (1) to obtain confessions, apart from any incriminating evidence; and (2) to try and get contractual agreement in place for accepting any charges or liability; and finally (3) in discrediting any future possible appeal or arguments of defense by exposing inconsistencies and falsities.

Before we move on, let me say again as I have said repeatedly, even tonight – none of this is designed to reflect badly on individual police officers. I have the utmost respect and admiration to those brave men and women willing day after day to deal with the worst and most tragic circumstances of our societies. The vast majority of these men and women are the most upstanding, the most honorable and the most courageous of any members of our society; and I urge everyone to treat police officers with respect. However, this does not change the fact that such good people are compelled by their work conditions to do what we are discussing now.

Page 20 – Police Visit - Fishing

The first example concerning testimony I would like to share with you is the heart in your throat example when two or more police come to your door – often at an unreasonable hour and simply knock. How do you respond, without falling into a contract? - Or accidentally confessing to something before you know what it is?

Let us take a look at slide 20. There is a knock at the door. You open it and you see one or more police officers or some form of law enforcement or detectives.

You: How may I help you?

Police: Are you J Smith?

You: Who are you and what is this about?

Police: May we come in? We’d like to just ask you some questions.

You: Are you here to accuse me of a crime?

Police: No (if yes have a look at the next few slides)

You. Then we have nothing to discuss. Thank you and good-bye.

Close the door.

Of course, there is an infinite number of ways such an encounter may play out. The police may threaten you with coming back with a warrant. Your response then should be always: “Are you using your position as a police officer to unlawfully threaten me or are you mistaken?” - and if they respond yes, then you could say, “If so, will you be disclosing your unlawful use of intimidation to the judge when you are getting a warrant, or will I have to testify to that fact later?

Again, I am mindful that some police can be very intimidating and in some occasions even fatally violent to people. I am not advocating people adopt the stance of some “smart-arse” or be disrespectful, I am merely pointing out that knowing who you are and being competent in the knowledge of this series on the law explained; and knowing exactly what the police are told to do, enables you to respond without being tricked.

Page 21 – Traffic Stop- Polite Initial Contact

Let us have a look at slide 21 and the most classic of all examples of police trickery under the collapsing and broken corrupt legal system of most societies and the traffic stop.

As the slide says at the top, whenever you are flashed by police to pull over, pull over safely as soon as possible. Place your license and registration papers on the dash and never reflexively hand your license to the police officer as this is interpreted under this corrupt revenue raising system as like handing a blank check to them to charge you with whatever they want. So remain in the car with your hands clearly visible, unless otherwise instructed. And your first response should be:

You: How may I help you officer?

Police: Drivers license and registration!

You: Yes, I have all the proper documents here with me as you can see, but first what is this about?

Police: Drivers license and registration

You: Yes, you can see I have all the documents here to give you, but first I need to know the reason for you stopping me?

Now, the interaction will go one of several ways – either the police officer has some computer alert telling him or her to arrest you or detain you, or that you have some out of date tags; or the police officer observed you breaking some traffic law and so has probable cause; or they are fishing because they do not like the look of you. Before we look at those different options, let us consider a traffic stop with threatening behaviour by the police.

Page 22 – Traffic Stop-Threatening Initial Contact

Slide 22 looks at the case of police using threatening behaviour at a traffic stop, usually to intimidate people.

You: How may I help you officer?

Police: Step out of the vehicle

You: Are you formally arresting me?

Police: No, or I just want to check your vehicle…

You: Well if you are not formally arresting me, then you have no reasonable grounds to continue to detain me and we have nothing else to discuss. Will that be all?

Now, if the police officer has his gun drawn, then obviously you are dealing with a very dangerous situation and for your own survival in the face of psychopaths hiding behind badges, you need to tread carefully for your own survival. Just don’t be stupid and usually, this kind of response is enough to cause a bully to revert to a softer approach, usually going back to asking for the “drivers license and registration, etc”.

Page 23 – Traffic Stop-Computer Alert

Slide 23 addresses the issue of a computer alert – the form of automation that now causes police to reflexively react to drivers by automatic number plate recognition, etc. Such computer alerts tells the police officer or officers of any alleged outstanding warrants or claimed unregistered vehicles or other claims.

Keep in mind, that if the computer system does ping them that you may or may not have an outstanding warrant, all the police officer has is probable cause. He or she does not yet have in their possession the actual warrant, so they still need to contract with you and get you to admit or confess in order to arrest you.

Police: You know you have an outstanding warrant?

You: Are you accusing me of having an outstanding warrant?

Police: No

You: Then we have nothing else to discuss. Will that be all officer?


Police: Yes, that is what the computer says.

You: Then because you are making an accusation as an accuser, before we go any further can you please provide me the evidence before I accept anything from you today or sign or do anything?

Now at this point, the officer may demand you step out of the car, in such case you would immediately ask before moving “are you formally arresting me?” and then asking on what grounds?

Again, the point being that even for the serious claim of an outstanding warrant, knowing who you are and how the police are trained to trick you is vital. It is not about avoiding your obligations or making the life of police more difficult, it is simply the fact that unless we question and ask clear and unmistakable questions, then the automation of the system uses that against us as we progress through their court system.

Page 24 – Traffic Stop- Probable Cause

Slide 24 gives us an example of a traffic stop for probable cause. Probable cause is reasonable suspicion, usually backed up by some observed circumstantial event such as running a red light, or failing to indicate, or speeding, or lights off at night, or erratic driving. In this example, I am assuming you have already commenced some kind of dialogue with the police officer.

Police: Is there any reason you were speeding? Or failed to stop at sign?

You: Are you accusing me of speeding? Or Are you accusing me of not stopping at the sign?

Police: No

You Then we have nothing else to discuss. Will that be all officer?


Police: Yes. I saw you speeding or failing to stop at a red light.

You: Then because you are making an accusation as an accuser, you must know I cannot accept anything from you today or sign anything until I have had time to review all the facts of your accusation?

Police: You can sort that out in court or You can explain that to the judge

You: You can’t be both the accuser and a witness can you? It is you who are accusing me here aren’t you? Or am I mistaken and you have some special power to be judge, jury and executioner all at the same time?

Again, none of this is about encouraging people to be smart-arses. I am merely pointing out the power of this knowledge properly applied, as clearly a police officer has no power to be judge, jury and executioner. They know it and you know it. So there are plenty of fish in the sea and why risk their career on you?

Page 25 – Traffic Stop- Fishing

This leads us to slide 25 and an increasing use of police to use harassment to find probable causes to fine and arrest people in the case of fishing. Fishing is the technique of asking questions or behaving in an intimidatory enough manner to cause controversy and create probable cause - In other words, to bait you to bite.

Police: Have you been drinking tonight? Or Have you taken any drugs tonight?

You:  Are you accusing me of driving under the influence of alcohol? Or Are you accusing me of driving under the influence of drugs?

Police: Step out of the car please sir.

You: Are you formally arresting me?

Police: No I just want to check your vehicle. Or No, I just want to check to see if you are sober.

You: Well if you are not formally arresting me, or accusing me, then you have no reasonable grounds to continue to detain me and we have nothing else to discuss. Will that be all?

Keep in mind, that in certain jurisdictions, they have created repugnant laws to try and compel people to comply, such as breath test laws in Australia. In Australia, although the police officer may speak quickly, as soon as you pull over they must usually say they are “arresting you” for the purpose of a breath test. 

The same response applies with “are you accusing me of drink driving?” If the answer is no, then they have no reasonable grounds for an arrest, namely “so you are you admitting you have no reasonable grounds yet for arresting me and this is an unlawful arrest?”

Now it can get more complicated in places like Australia where there is no real law, only corporate regulations and I urge people to use caution. However, the point I am making with these examples is that even in the most draconian of places, knowing the fact that the police arrest you before they have any evidence in order to compel you and threaten you to confess evidence is an absurdity in law - and that must stop.

Page 26 – Arrest

This leads us to slide 26 and the traumatic concept of arrest. The first point I would like to make about arrest is ensuring that it has been formally stated. For example, many people have been charged with resisting arrest when no formal arrest was initially made because they continue to engage in dialogue. It is an old trick. So the first point of arrest is knowing that the police officer has formally stated you are under arrest and for what reason or purpose - one what grounds?

Police: I am placing you under arrest

You: On what grounds am I being arrested?

Police: Reading your rights, then do you understand?

You: How can I or anyone reasonably answer your question(s) without all the facts first?

Page 27 – Police Station Processing

Slide 27 gives us similar role-playing in the processing and the question of "do you understand the charges". The point being that if you answer no, they assume you are an idiot and proceed anyway, or use your agreement to the contract. The only way to answer is to ask them for the information they have withheld to answer the question. When they refuse, you have proven the claims are unreasonable.

Of course that does not mean they are going to do the right thing. On the contrary, as we have shown, this is a corrupt and false system to its core, where people are doing their job on automation, without questioning the obvious flaws in front of them. It may not stop them, but it will make it that much harder to maintain the illusion that there is any rule of law in pseudo courts in most western societies.

Page 28 – Police Station Processing Questions

Slide 28 then gives four sets of key questions that you have every right to be answered before you can reply to any agreement or understanding or contract of charges; and well before any demand for a plea of guilty or not guilty.

Part #4 – Affidavits

Page 3o – Affidavit

This brings me to the final section of our discussion tonight and the idea of Affidavits from slide 30.

For this section, I am going to ask you to refer to Article 98 on Fiduciary Law on the website One-Heaven.org as detail rather than slides, as it is easier to go through all the details.

Under English law, the concept of Affidavit began, they claim, in the 13th Century with the word affidavit from the Latin phrase “ad fido vidi” meaning “I promise I saw/know”, as written testimony made under oath. Then in the 19th Century it was diminished to the concept of a statutory declaration being a claimed statement of facts without oath, being the standard form under the banking world today.

Canon 7476 

An Affidavit is a formal Instrument of three types being a True Affidavit, Superior Affidavit or Inferior Affidavit as a form of Deed of a Trust, or Estate or Fund being a voluntary declaration of written facts by a Deponent under solemn Oath or Affirmation before one or more capable and authorized witnesses.

Canon 7477 

In reference to the primary differences between a True Affidavit, Superior Affidavit or Inferior Affidavit:

(i) A True Affidavit is any Affidavit in the handwriting of a man or woman, sworn under Oath according to their will in accord with the laws of Heaven as defined by Pactum De Singularis Caelum; and

(ii) A Superior Affidavit is any printed Affidavit sworn either under the Bylaws of a valid Trust, or Estate or Fund formed through the completion of the prescribed form of Voluntatem Et Testament or under the Codes of a valid Ucadian Society; and

(iii) An Inferior Affidavit is any printed Affidavit issued under the Scientiam Mysteria (Occult Knowledge) standards of instruments and writing first formed under King Henry VIII of England from the 16th Century and associated Statutes, Regulations, Codes and By-Laws.

Canon 7478 

Notwithstanding defects, errors and mistakes within the form of an Affidavit, an Inferior Affidavit can never be superior to a Superior Affidavit; and a Superior Affidavit can never be superior to a True Affidavit.

Canon 7479 

The key elements of the form of a valid Affidavit and its Annexures are:

(i) Quality Paper means that the paper used is of a durable quality and standard to the size used in normal jurisdiction within the region; and

(ii) One Sided means that the Affidavit is preferably written or printed on only one side of the page; and

(iii) Legible Print means that all writing and printing is clear, sharp and legible of a 12 point serif font (e.g. Times); and

(iv) Numbered Pages means that all individual pages of the Affidavit, excluding Annexures are uniquely numbered in ascending order beginning with 1; and

(v) Numbered Clauses means that all individual clauses of the Affidavit itself are uniquely numbered in square brackets in ascending order, beginning with [1]; and

(vi) Securely Fastened means Individual Pages of the Affidavit are securely fastened together along with any Annexures; and

(vii) Clear Margins means the spacing of writing or printing of the Affidavit itself should allow for a minimum of 25mm on the left and right margin as well as the top and bottom margins of each page; and

(viii) Double Spacing means the spacing between the writing or printing of each line of the Affidavit itself allows for a space of at least 3mm; and

(ix) Words not Figures means that all expressions of dates, sums and other numbers, except the numbering of paragraphs, pages or reference numbers in association to the matter are in words, not figures or numbers; and

(x) Form of Law means the specific name of the Public Statute or By-laws whereby the Affidavit is formed and issued is clearly identified as the first printed title at the top of the first page; and

(xi) Body Politic means the specific name of the Body Politic, or Corporation whereby the Form of Law mentioned was issued as the second printed title of the Affidavit; and

(xii) Deponent means the specific name of the one making the Affidavit and the word “Deponent” is clearly visible as the first name of any party; and

(xiii) Respondent means the specific name of the respondent(s) and the word “Respondent” clearly visible as the second party; and

(xiv) Issue Number means a unique and specific reference number associated with the records of the Deponent for the matter, that may then be repeated on any subsequent material, motions or Affidavits; and

(xv) Foreign Reference Number means any foreign reference number associated with claims, or matters raised by the other party, always listed in square brackets; and

(xvi) Filed Date means the Date filed in Words; and

(xvii) Heading means if the Affidavit is a simple Affidavit (and NOT designed for judicial motion), then the word AFFIDAVIT is clearly identifying the instrument as an Affidavit; and

(xviii) Preamble means the opening sentence or statement that is not normally numbered, whereby the Deponent states their name, their address, their official capacity and whether the following facts are made under oath or affirmed as evidence. An example is I, FRED BLOGGS, the duly authorized Attorney-In-Fact, of 22 Bloggs Street, Bloggsville, do solemnly and sincerely say under Oath in Good Faith and without Prejudice; and

(xix) Recitals means the second sentence or first numbered paragraph directly after the Preamble, that is normally numbered as [1] whereby the Deponent as witness states their age, their mental state, their qualification to make an Affidavit and the fact that the Affidavit was done without duress or promise. An example is: [1] I was born on the 10th January 1963 and am 52 years of age. I am of sound mind and reason and do sincerely and honestly affirm the present instrument to be my own words, written by me, given freely and without duress and expressing accurately to the best of my ability the facts herein of that I have witnessed firsthand and with expert knowledge; and

(xx) Decretum means the body of first hand facts and expert knowledge in chronological and logical order, expressing one key fact per paragraph in ascending number order; and

(xxi) Testamentum means the final numbered paragraph expressing the testament of the witness as Deponent that everything they have expressed is true and correct. An example is: All the facts and circumstances deposed herein are within my own firsthand knowledge except such as are deposed herein from information in accord with my reasonable expert knowledge as appears within the present Affidavit; and

(xxii) Jurat means that the Deponent must sign a declaration that they have taken an Oath or affirmation at the end of the Affidavit including the date of the Affidavit and Oath and the place the Oath was taken. The person then before whom the Affidavit is made under Oath must write their name and address together with the capacity whereby they are entitled to take the Affidavit; and

(xxiii) Signing of Pages means that the Deponent and the Authorized Witness(es) must sign each page as validation; and

(xxiv) Reference means that where a Deponent refers to a document or documents within the body of the Affidavit, copies of the document or documents may be made an Annexure to the Affidavit; and

(xxv) Annexure Numbering means each Exhibit at the back of the Affidavit should be clearly and uniquely numbered in ascending order, beginning with 1; and

(xxvi) Certificate of Annexures means where a document or documents is exhibited to an affidavit, the Annexure must be identified as such by a Certificate of Annexures attached at the front of all Annexures entitled in the same manner as the affidavit and signed by the person before whom the affidavit is made and must be identified as such on affidavit itself. For example: “This is the annexure marked Annexure 1 referred to in the affidavit of Fred Bloggs sworn/affirmed on [date] before me.” and then signed; and

(xxvii) Certificate of Witness means that the Authorized Witness who witnessed the sworn Oath and signing of the Affidavit also provides a Certification as to proof of the identity of the person making the Affidavit.

Canon 7480 

The norms and standards concerning the Affidavits are:

(i) Right of Oath upon Sacred Scripture means a Deponent has the sacred Right to choose upon what sacred scripture he or she makes a solemn oath. Thus it can be the Holy Bible, or Pactum de Singularis Caelum, or Yapa, or Al Sufian or even Lebor Clann Glas; and

(ii) Rules of Evidence means in most jurisdictions, the same rules of Evidence apply to an Affidavit as apply to sworn oral evidence; and

(iii) First Hand Facts means an Affidavit can only be about first hand facts and knowledge that the Deponent has witnessed or has expert knowledge. A valid Affidavit can never contain opinion, hearsay, accusations or supposition. To claim someone broke the law without actually witnessing the event is false testimony and inadmissible as Evidence; and

(iv) Affidavit is not Pleading means that the purpose of an Affidavit is not to admit, deny or argue the claims of another party. While a fact of an Affidavit may refer to receiving a claim or the Affidavit of another party, the contents of such instruments are not relevant except in referring to firsthand knowledge of facts; and

(v) Affidavit is not Petition means that the purpose of an Affidavit is not to petition a Justice or Magistrate to act or not act; and

(vi) In Propria Persona means all valid Affidavits are from the perspective of 1st person in active voice (not past tense or passive) and not as an agent or a thing; and

(vii) Good Faith and Clean Hands means all valid Affidavits are from the perspective of good faith and clean hands without prejudice as a fiduciary; and

(viii) Affidavit Stands as Testimony means an Affidavit can be read in court without the Deponent having to attend as a witness as to its truthfulness, unless formally challenged in writing by the other parties prior to the next hearing or court procedure; and

(ix) Affidavit Service means that in order for an Affidavit to be replied upon, it must be served on all relevant parties prior to a hearing or within the limits of timetable of service of a matter. Failure to serve all parties in good faith prior to an actual hearing of a matter may result in the Affidavit being denied acceptance except by leave of the court; and

(x) Proof of Service means that Proof of Service and Notice is sufficient evidence that an Affidavit has been delivered and received by the other parties within reasonable time. An Affidavit of Service might also be formed as further evidence of Service; and

(xi) Filing of Affidavit means that an Affidavit is filed before or after Proof of Service to other parties, that depends upon court procedures in each jurisdiction. Generally, unless the Affidavit is in support of a formal application (or motion), an Affidavit does not need to be filed before being served on the other Parties.

Canon 7481 

An Inferior Affidavit may be in Public Form or Private Form:

(i) A Public Form is a form of Inferior Affidavit prescribed by Statute whereas a Private Form of Affidavit is one prescribed by a corporation or entity complying to their internal bylaws or policies; and

(ii) Any and all Roman Officials have the right under Inferior Western-Roman Law to deny an Affidavit where it contains major defects, or irrational and incomprehensible language or when a person seeks to put a private foreign form into a public forum; and

(iii) Unless otherwise declared to be a Public Forum under Public Laws (Statutes), an Inferior Roman Court may deny the entry of an Affidavit onto the record if it does not comply exactly to their private standards in defiance of Public Statute; and

(iv) The late service or failure to properly serve an Affidavit or have it filed in a timely manner may result in a Court denying the Affidavit and refusing leave of the Court to have it added to the Record.

Now given the only real evidence is Testimony and Testimony means literally Evidence according to the original meaning of the word, Affidavits are critically important to be made at each and every step you do, as proof and evidence of fact.

We will be speaking in far more detail from now on about Affidavits in each and every step of the processes on practical answers to legal matters and concerns.

The only viable solution for restoring truth in law is Ucadia

The only viable solution for restoring truth in Law through proper testimony is Ucadia.

To all of you who continue to read, to support and donate or deposit foreign currencies to assist Ucadia, thank you.

Until we speak next week, please be safe and be well.



Sunday, August 9, 2015

The Law Explained: Session 9 – Modern Pseudo Courts

Please download MP3 Audio Broadcast of this Blog > here   (86 min 29 Mb)

Hello, this is Frank O’Collins and welcome to Session 9 of the series on The Law Explained and the topic tonight being Pseudo Courts of the NWO4.0, court cases and why you absolutely need to read and comprehend the session and slides tonight before continuing on this series; and the continued practical solutions we will be presenting such as Affidavits, challenging venue, solving foreclosures, facing court, dealing with demands and threats and surviving in this seemingly crazy world that is the broken down New World Order or NWO4.0.

By NWO4.0 and New World Order 4.0 - I mean exactly as you might have assumed, as I am referring to the 4th version of the New World Order from 2001 until March 2013 and the claimed complete control over the world. The 4th version, not the first or some proposed future version, but the fourth. And in case you were wondering, each age - or Reich as it is known in German – has been exactly 70 years with a three year transition phase each turning point – from 1791 to 1861, then from 1861 to 1931, then from 1931 to 2001. 

Maybe you have been reading the Ucadia series on The Law Explained and actually seen the slides on the New World Order such as those on slides 36, 37, 38 and 39 on Session 6 on Capital, Money and Markets we discussed a few weeks ago; and you may have completely missed it. Maybe, you have heard me mentioned the Fourth Reich before and it did not sink in. Whatever the reason, tonight I am pleading with you to clear your mind of all the false claims, misinformation and conspiracy theories you may or may not know, and focus specifically on the topic of the Pseudo Courts of the New World Order version 4.0 or the Fourth Reich – how it has already started to affect you – and why this system was completely rejected by three quarters of the elite of the world back in 2013, yet why a smaller and smaller band of fanatics and severely mentally ill people continue to cling to the notion that the Fourth Reich is still going strong since 2001.

By the word “pseudo” in the context of the Psuedo Courts of the New World Order 4.0, I mean exactly as the original word from Ancient Greek as “pseudas” (ψευδής) meaning “false or lying” or in modern terms fake, imposters, a sham and spurious. I say this, because the evidence is so overwhelming that these local, district, state, supreme forums that claim themselves as courts of law are nothing of the sort anymore:

These Pseudo Courts have been based for more than 150 years on absurd, illogical, immoral, repugnant, profane and heretical statutes and regulations of “summary justice” whereby a person is considered guilty in mere accusation in open defiance of the proper Rule of Law, disqualifying any such institution from claiming itself a forum of law, much less a court of law; and

These Pseudo Courts have been private “for-profit” corporations, holding exclusive private franchises and not public institutions for more than 80 years in most places and therefore no different to a local supermarket chain, or commercial bank or private debt collection agency, in open defiance of state and national constitutions, whereby disqualifying any such institution from making lawful orders and other public decrees as a public forum or law, much less a public court of law; and

These Pseudo Courts have been operated by people pretending to be judges and magistrates for more than fifty years, using secret handbooks and manuals proving such people occupying such offices do not even follow their own private based rules and regulations anymore, so that court cases that should be decided in days are now decided in intervals of ten minutes or less, meaning it is impossible – absolutely impossible for anyone to credibly claim that any of these institutions are even private courts anymore, much less places of law of any form. They are business exchanges – nothing more; and

Finally, these Pseudo Courts have by and large converted over to computerized and automated electronic filing systems whereby it is the software companies, that designed the screens and functionality that are the defacto rules and regulations in the past six years – and none of these institutions – not one follows any proper principles of law anymore – they have become high frequency traders on the ignorance and continued stupidity of the public, that still cling to the television and Hollywood image that these are courts of law, rather than frequency traders of bonds and stolen property for their own personal gain.

So I hope you see why it is absolutely vital that you must read and listen to and comprehend what we will be discussing tonight, simply because if you do not even know what you are dealing with when you are faced with these pseudo courts, or legal firms or debt collectors, or banks or other credit agencies and how their systems have devolved, then none of the practical solutions are going to matter. Because, the chances are still too great that you will continue to make grave errors on the ill advise of others. There is a real chance that you may continue to waste your time on processes and claims and sometimes highly convoluted claimed remedies that have absolutely nothing to do with how the systems of the collapsing Fourth Reich work!

For example, what if I were to tell you that the United States Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as first formed in 1938 and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure as first formed from 1944 or “FRCP” are now largely irrelevant to how judges run cases for the Fourth Reich in the United States. Similarly in the United Kingdom, the Civil Procedures Rules or CPR as introduced in 1999 are largely ignored by the way courts are operating there, even though these rules were supposed to have been a basic standard for all procedures of courts around the world as part of the Fourth Reich.

When you actually get to view the training manuals of judges and clerks as part of the transition from the end of the Third Reich to the beginning of the Fourth Reich from 2001, you see that all the public statutes, all the legal dictionaries, even all the private codes as corporate summaries of public statutes are no longer followed. Instead, judges have become paid actors – pretending to know the law and pretending to follow the law and following a script that helps them get from points A to B without being exposed; and that they cannot possibly personally know millions of laws in one jurisdiction alone, much less have read the hundreds of thousands of pages of laws that define them.

Just think about this logical conclusion for a moment, when you have “believed” some remedy guru that tells you the answer to your problems is some ancient right such as “usufruct” because he or she read it in some old legal dictionary; or that the answer is some other long winded procedure to circumvent the claims of the courts. Just as few people reading or listening to this session tonight have read even a fraction of the Public Statutes of the United States Congress since its inception or read the statutes of your own country, much less that people have read the claimed Public General Statutes of England, Wales and Scotland, then Great Britain and Ireland and then the United Kingdom since the time of the Magna Carta. 

I have read them and I can tell you honestly that the process had taken several years of dedicated reading and study and even then, I have not even scratched the surface when it comes to Executive Orders, Regulations, Private Bills and the millions of other laws, policies and ordinances that have come in to effect via nefarious channels.

How on earth could anyone think that a sitting judge has time to read the millions of laws and the hundreds of thousands of pages of texts called law in their jurisdiction; and then read and review evidence; and then listen to and hear cases; and then write judgments and paperwork; and then do everything else in their lives? Of course, the system invented a cheat sheet for judges to still appear “all knowing” and “all powerful”, despite the absurd level of rules and procedures that imprison the world. That is why there will always be an army of people – many of whom are victims of programs such as MK-Ultra and Project Monarch that have been unleashed on the “Truth Movement” spouting all kinds of esoteric and irrelevant nonsense and none of it – none of it has anything to do with how the system actually functions today.

Let me prove it to you with one quote from the BLUE BOOK – or THE MANUAL FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES: This is from the 1992 version in the section dealing with exhibits (pg 61):

“Factual exhibits are sometimes interlaced with argumentative, redundant, and inconsequential material. Rather than take the time to go through the procedures outlined above and to examine the exhibits word by word or line by line to strike such a matter, it is frequently quicker, easier and more satisfactory for the judge to announce that such material will not be considered, and that attempts to cross-examine on it are unnecessary and will be stricken.”

NOTE: Archive.org and other sites have copies of this text as pdf available for download.

Now, as I said from the outset of the blog tonight, it is entirely possible that you are not seeing what is being written or hearing clearly what is spoken, such as the significance of this quote. We will be getting to the detail of the issue of the legal system and Administrative Law under the Fourth Reich in a moment, but I wanted to give you a practical example of how judges are taught to cut corners and throw out exhibits, even if you have spent enormous time preparing – in order to cut down the length of time of hearings and make more money for the system. How else do you think a sitting judge can process some 80 or more cases a day in some jurisdictions? It is certainly not by following any form of law, much less rules of procedure.

Another issue that seems to keep people stuck is the notion that they still feel the systems as introduced more than 70 years ago under the Third Reich, such as declaring everyone dead and trading on the birth certificate as a bond security is still central to the Fourth Reich financial model. It isn’t! A very small bunch of criminally insane bankers of Wall Street blew up that system finally by 2008 and the global economic system as you may think you know it, effectively ceased to exist from that time. Sure you see bonds and money exchanges and all other kinds of elements still appearing to operate; but there is no proper accounting; and there is no settling of the accounts. The current debts of the global system exceed the book value of the assets of the world many billions of times over. 

Just think about this for a moment. The account records of debts that ballooned from fancy derivatives and futures sold as AAA rated assets, is now billions of times larger than the assets that are supposed to underwrite the debt. The system is completely and irreparably broken! It is impossible to reconcile and re-balance the system now. Instead, as I have said numerous times, the system only functions on three basic levers, controlled markets, credit and media as pure propaganda. We will also get into this in more detail in a moment.

But before we start, let me give you one more quote in the hope that you will clear your mind of all the things you think are remedies in the present world. This is a quote from the RED BOOK as the FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE SOURCEBOOK of 1992. 

“What a charming life that was, that dear old life in the Navy when I kept grocery on a gunboat. I knew all the regulations and the rest of them didn’t. I had all my rights and most of theirs.”  Thomas B. Reed. Speaker of the House 1890-92, 1895-99

NOTE: Archive.org and other sites have copies of this text as pdf available for download.

Part #1 – A “Reality Check” of the Delusion

Page 3 – A “Reality Check” of the Delusion

Let us jump straight in then with Slide 3 of the pack of slides for tonight and a “Reality Check” on the cognitive dissonance and denial and delusion you are facing in seeking to discuss with others what you have been learning regarding the truth.

Slide 3 reminds us of five simple measures that we can use to prove that the reality of the present world does not match with the fictional narrative of mass media.

As has been stated and proven by links to primary sources of hundreds and hundreds of statutes and examples, there has been no proper Rule of Law for more than 400 years. The very fact that no senior bankers on Wall Street have ever been charged with crimes against humanity for what they did in 2008 against honest hardworking people; and the very fact that the elite now consider the murder of extremely endangered wildlife, followed immediately with the bragging about it, via social media, as a perverse “status symbol” without fear of prosecution; and the fact that merchants, moneylenders and politicians claim immunity from attack, despite committing multiple frauds, is overwhelming proof there has been no rule of law in most countries for centuries.

Similarly, since the introduction of the Summary Justice Acts in the United Kingdom from 1848 onward and that under “summary justice” a person is considered guilty on mere accusation; and that people are considered insolvent debtors with no rights; and are now considered to be terrorist prisoners as hostage to their government, is overwhelming proof there is no justice.

Nor has there been any proper accounting since the 1960s in their system. Nor has there been any due process in their claimed courts since the 1980’s, with most clerks, judges, magistrates and officials completely ignoring requirements for proper affidavits, signed complaints, signed warrants and so on. 

Since the 1990s there has been a complete lack of competence throughout our political and professional classes concerning their duties and obligations. Members of the bar guilds have never been so ignorant of their own laws and bankers have never been as corrupt and inept as they are now. It has become so farcical that they don’t even pretend to care anymore. Just look at the presidential candidate races and what is being done this time around.

Page 4 – English Law has been fake for 200+ years

Yet as slide 4 reminds us, the problem is even more bizarre than the fact there is no proper law, or justice, or accounting, or due process when you consider the indisputable fact that not a single English statute prior to the 19th Century can be trusted as authentic. Virtually all of them are deliberate lies. Fake history, fake claims, new words that could not possibly have been used at the time – all jumbled together to give the air of respectability.

I am not being harsh, I am actually being generous in listing only six major fires to destroy the evidence and start again that we know of. For example, when the democratic government and nation known as the Commonwealth of Great Britain was defeated by a combined mercenary and pirate merchant fleet of the Dutch East India Company and the English East India Company by 1659, little remains of the statutes that were passed, or the Presbyterian Bible of Westminster, or the history of the proper flag of the Commonwealth, or the events of how a bunch of mercenary pirates unlawfully seized control of England by 1659 and became the Crown Corporation and Mystery Company and Royal Society – just to identify the origin of a few very significant corporation names.

Page 5 – All your ‘rights’ are beneficial interests only

It is no wonder then, considering we cannot rely on any of their documents to tell the truth, that it has been so difficult to get a handle on essential concepts of law, such as the fact as on slide 5 that under the present system all of our rights are considered beneficial interests only.

The evidence is overwhelming, yet people for some reason do not get it. Under a bankruptcy of a nation or a people, you cannot have rights. Rights are the source of property and when you are bankrupt, you are considered spiritually, morally and legally bankrupt – under their perverse model you lose your rights. That is the whole point of their fake belief of “original sin” – designed to steal the rights of people by corrupting Christianity.

Under bankruptcy, everyone except the elite merchants, nobles and bankers are considered “insolvent debtors” without rights or assets. That is why all your alleged rights under the present system are nothing more than beneficial interests; and that is why securities as contracted debts are considered assets; and that is why you used to have to surrender your receipts to the tax office; and that is why accounting seems the wrong way around in treating credits as debits and debits as credits; and that is why the present system claims the absolute power to take anything from you and get away with it.

Page 6 – The Present Matrix Model has “no way out”

As slide 6 shows again, under the present Matrix Model of multiple bankruptcies, there is no way out. Your rights have been stripped at every level and you are considered a recalcitrant; and ignorant; and insolvent; and delinquent.

Sure you can jump up and down all your like – but their front line staff employees know there is nothing you can do, because unless you can prove you have escaped the prison, you have no right to claim in propria persona when you go to court; and you have no rights to create financial instruments of your own; and you have no rights to claim Special Appearance; and you have no rights to claim to be a man or a woman; and you have no right to ignore their demands, or threats or intimidation and torture.

Yell, scream, and quote as much fake law as you like. It won’t change this fact and it won’t cause court officials or police or other enforcers of their system to back off. On the contrary, the very fact that so many people refuse to acknowledge the reality, that unless you can prove you are a superior person from outside their system, such as a Superior Person from Ucadia, by your Live Borne Record, then you are nothing more than a “table and chair” to them – something to be seized and imprisoned in one of their warehouses.

Page 7 – The truth of Rule of Law

This leads me to slide 7 and yet another massive challenge we need to keep in mind when considering how we move on from here and what we know about the law and what the law is not – namely as shown on slide 7 – being the massive cognitive dissonance that exists at every level of society and professionals between what is the “official public claim”, versus what the professionals think they know as the “secret occult beliefs” of their craft, versus finally the truth in law as it exists now.

As I have said over and over and over again, the first people the system lies to are the lawyers. Senior lawyers may think they know the inside tracks of the legal system, to make things happen, when in fact they are no more knowledgeable of the truth in law than you or I. They are simply tricked into “believing” that the secret and occult history, restricted from view is the “real law” versus the public façade. 

Let us take a look at each segment on slide 7 as a case in point, beginning with the Official Public Claim of what the law is supposed to be, namely that “society exists under the proper rule of law” – That “Modern democratic societies (such as US, Canada, Australia and Europe) exist under proper Rule of Law whereby every citizen is considered equal and subject to the same set of laws; and where rights are protected and upheld and the courts follow due procedure.”

This is the stock standard answer you see coming out of the mouths of every political leader, every media expert and apologist and every supposed expert in law. But what do these people think they know behind the scenes? What do these various politicians, bankers, lawyers and merchants think the law is in terms of their secret cabals and fraternities? Well, it can be summed up in a single sentence “The Law is whatever we say it is”. – Namely - “The reality is that society is still class-based whereby an elite group of people govern the masses and may change the laws at any time to suit themselves. Rights can be squashed and exemptions and immunities granted and business goes on, so long as the masses “believe” there is some notion of rule of law.”

To the powerful back room wheelers and dealers, they don’t really care about history. All they know is, that under the present system we call Western-Roman Law, that they can pretty much change the law to suit whatever they want to do and get away with most things, providing the media play ball – as they usually do. Yet is this the truth? Is this the truth that the law ultimately is just a play thing for the rich and the elite and unless you have some military power, you are screwed?

Well, the final box exposes the lies of the first two boxes with the statement that “no Golden Rule of Law, no true justice- there is no law”. In other words, whenever there is an absence of the Golden Rule of Law and the respect of rights as true justice, then such a society is merely a tyranny, or anarchy or prison of merchant criminals, namely “Any society that enslaves its people, or considers slavery a moral right (e.g. US 13th amendment), or grants immunities to an elite few, or makes its own people enemies and criminals, or judges people guilty before innocent (as in all British commonwealth and former colonies) has no law or legitimacy and is simply a tyrannical system under force, fear and terror.”

Page 8 – The truth of modern Public Law

We see the same massive cognitive dissonance on slide 8 and the “truth of modern public law” between the public façade, versus what people in elite positions think they know and the actual truth in law.

I mean, how many people are taking the money of people over the internet and at seminars claiming they know some “secret” piece of statute, or words, or code or procedure in common law, when as far as the court officials and enforcers of the present system are concerned, all of the public statutes and maxims of law are largely irrelevant to how they operate. Prosecutors and court clerks continue to roll their eyes at the endless conga line of willfully stupid people that “believe” the absolute rubbish these false information agents continue to spread that there is any kind of remedy – such as in reversionary interest, or surrendering birth certificates, or UCC procedures, or usufruct or a complete host of other fake remedies and blatantly insane lies.

Yet tonight, I am going to reveal to you that even the lawyers and prosecutors don’t fully know that judges and magistrates have developed their own private manuals and systems for dealing with cases, that in many respects even ignore the private regulations and procedures of the corporations, yet get away with it. So the point I am trying to make here is that it is this kind of massive cognitive dissonance that is still holding this entire edifice together, with people running around like headless chickens on all sides, no one really knowing what is and what is not the truth.

Page 9 – The truth of modern Judges

Slide 9 summarizes some of the points we will be exploring a bit further in the audio and blog tonight concerning the truth of modern judges; and the huge cognitive dissonance between the “official public claim” of what is a judge or justice; versus what judges are effectively told they are within the system; and the truth and origin of such positions under the corruption of the laws under Westminster.

Now, I am not asking you to trust me, only to look at what I am showing you. For example, have a look at the Blue Book I mentioned earlier, being the “Manual for Administrative Law Judges” 3rd edition of 1993. There are of course later editions since this time, yet the reference still holds. The first thing someone might ask themselves is “what has an administrative law judge got to do with criminal or civil law?” Well everything in fact, when you consider that all criminal and civil law is now considered administrative and commercial since the late 1940’s (with the U.S. passage of the Administrative Procedures Act in 1946) and now adopted on similar lines in many places in the world.

When you read the manual, you soon discover how judges manage to convert a legal matter that should in theory take several days to conclude, into a matter that is processed as a piece of business inside of six minutes. Think about it. How on earth can anyone claim justice is done inside of six minutes and yet in many places around planet earth, especially in places such as the United States and increasingly in Australia and Canada and the UK, a hearing in court lasts little more than a few minutes – or about the same time it takes to order a takeaway lunch at a fast food restaurant.

Now, I am not simply talking about a few words and a few pieces of paper, I am referring to a process where the courts are claiming rule of law, justice and due process, to read claims, affidavits, counter claims, exhibits, charges, bonds, and motions all within a few minutes. It is impossible, unless you have already determined the fate of the accused before they ever entered the court.

The Red Book gives the matching instruction on how court cases are to be treated as administrative matters of various agencies, again streamlining the process.

A case in point is this slide 9 and the truth that since the end of the 19th century and the revisions to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, there have been no judges in the courts of original jurisdiction, only registrars or private contractors as agents. I mean, what do you think a pre-hearing or a hearing or a conference is about? These are not trials? These processes have nothing to do with the formal presentation and testing of evidence, yet 99% of people that come to read and listen to this series on the Law Explained have probably experienced the injustice of a Court Hearing, where matters were decided without trial. How is that even possible? Because it is all done before you ever enter the court; and because it is all paper and money; and because the system has become even more streamlined since the advent of computers.

Page 10 – The truth of the Legal Adversarial System

Take a look at slide 10 and the Truth of the Legal Adversarial System and as I just mentioned, guilt and debt is already decided within the fabric of the Legal System and that no matter how smart a lawyer or prosecutor may think they are, in truth they probably have not got a clue how the actual legal system and financial systems of the New World Order 4.0 even operate.

Under the computerized systems of case management of these Pseudo-Courts, the case number automatically creates a bond representing a multiple of three to five times the value of charges, with any subsequent uniform bail conditions being around a tenth the value of the charges, so that even a traffic violation carrying a bail condition of some five hundred dollars will have a bond attached to the case number equivalent to some ten to fifteen thousand dollars alone! And this is created at the moment the police officer files his citation into the system via computer with a court attendance notice given to the accused.

In turn, the word “attendance” come from the Latin word “attendo” meaning originally “to serve” and in most modern dictionaries defines one who attends to be an “attendant” or one in servitude; one who owes a duty or service to another. Servitude is just a fancy way of defining slavery and is defined in legal dictionaries as when a person is subjected voluntarily or involuntarily to another person as their servant. Servitude then relates to a charge against a person, based upon easement of their body. I mean, how blatant do you want it to be expressed. The court attendance notice by your local police officer has just told you, “you are a slave” and if you do not pay, then we will repossess your body and throw you in prison.

Yet no clerk, no attorney, few police officers or court officials have a clue what this paper work means, because they don’t have dictionaries anymore defining what certain words mean on the computer screens of their automated high-speed businesses. If the computer says “no”, then the computer says no. 

Page 11 – The truth of modern Police Powers

Similarly, let us look back at slide 11 and the truth of modern police powers as example. Police Officers performing their duties are not your friend. Their primary objectives are to make money; and protect the banks and elite families; and if the first two are satisfied then only then are they authorized to protect the community. 

I am not saying that police men and police women are bad, or that the job they do in solving crime is not a crucial element of society – it is. Yet the fact is that most police officers, sheriffs and their deputies and marshals try their best to help the community, despite the mixed signals that they are given by their paymasters. It is like the equivalent to the benevolent jailer; or the kind executioner; or the good hearted debt collector or assassin – they can help people to some extent, but do not forget that the truth of their role – not the Public Relations lies – still determines largely what they are forced to do.

By the way, if you ever encounter a police officer trying to contract with you using the stock standard line “do you understand?” your response in all cases – unless you have all the facts – should be “how can I agree to what you are saying without all the facts?”  If they persist, then a standard follow up should be something like – “so are you demanding that I agree to something without all the facts?” Another path of questioning is simply “Are you going to give me all the facts first so I can answer truthfully?” – a follow on being “So are you saying you want me to perjure myself and commit a crime under intimidation by you?” Similarly, if a police officer asks you “Is there any reason you were traveling at 90 miles per hour?” The first answer should be, “ Are you accusing me of traveling at 90 miles per hour?”

In any event, the point I am making here is that no one should reasonably expect you to agree to any form of contract, on mere accusation, if you do not have all the facts, nor should you ever agree. Just so you are clear, answering “no I do not understand” is not a reasonable answer to the question “do you understand?” as it implies one of two conditions – either you are incompetent and might be suffering a mental condition, and in this case they will use that to possibly detain you; or secondly you are being uncooperative and therefore may have something to hide and gives them sufficient (reasonable) cause to detain you. The answer to any unreasonable question should always be to pose the unreasonableness back to the questioner. Let them admit they are being untruthful, unreasonable, intimidatory – not you.

Page 12 – The truth of modern Money and Credit

This leads me to a new slide as slide 12 and the truth of modern money and credit as yet another cognitive dissonance that people have with cash and bank accounts or any form of trading accounts in general under the Fourth Reich.

The marketing and Public Relations of mass media still play off the old notion that your money is safest in banks and other institutions, when in fact under the new edicts of the Fourth Reich, no one’s accounts or savings or money is safe. It used to be, when the Third Reich was in operation from 1931 onward, that there still had to be accounting and documentation.

Now, under the Fourth Reich, they will simply take the money out of your account, without so much as blinking and then you have to prove they cannot do it – a pretty much impossible task for most people to question the charges or confiscations or complicated excuses.

This is not just “once off” cases where people are having their accounts drained over night for seemingly bizarre and unjust reasons – it is happening more and more frequently; and yet the insanity and stupidity of people is in their "believing" in the lie that cash and bank accounts are the safest store, continues. There are even confidence merchants that have started to play upon growing concern by promoting holding gold or silver, or creating contracts or buying other currencies still within the market system.

In truth, there is only one form of safe harbor left for the store and deposit of credit -  and it is and has been Ucadia for some years now; where every deposit or gift is properly recorded and members may utilize such store of credit for various altruistic and personal services moving forward. I will be speaking in a lot more detail about Ucadia as a safe harbor for the store and deposit of credit as we move forward in this series. But for now, I make the point that cognitive dissonance means that more and more and more people are having tens of thousands and sometimes millions of monetary reserve bank units drained from bank accounts, while few have been smart enough to recognize the strength of Ucadia and make donations, knowing that such deposits of credit are stored not only for use of future services, but as safe harbor against the pirate system. 

Page 13 – Ucadia is a complete model

As we go through the topic tonight, I want you to keep in mind what slide 13 reminds us all – that Ucadia is a complete model and there are real alternatives within it to the New World Order 4.0 and its pseudo courts.

In fact, it can be justifiably argued that from the time of change from New World Order 3.0 or the Third Reich to the Fourth Reich, at the time of the end of millennium in the year 2000, those that had any sense of knowledge of prophecy knew that the replacement model to fulfill scripture and prophecy had to be a model based on freedom and enlightenment and the end of slavery and cursing. Yet as most of you know, the bankers and merchants in charge rejected history and the accumulated knowledge that put them in power in the first place.

They repudiated any resemblance of authority, or credibility, or competency, or sanity or sustainability and decided to create a pseudo model – a false New World Order 4.0 based on people being enemy combatants and terrorists – hence the acronym “war on terror”. That is why the catch cry for neo-conservatives, or neocons is that “History is for Pussies” – that they write their own history, their own law, their own prophecies as they go.

So really, it is time then to remind ourselves of the essential elements of a Case in terms of the absurd, immoral and profane system of Summary Justice and what must be proven for the high frequency money making machine to still work? 

Part #2 – Essential Elements of Action in Law

Page 15 – The law is necessarily fictional

The first point to remind ourselves on the essential elements of action in law that even the pseudo courts have to accept is the fact that all law is necessarily fictional because all law is attempting to judge events that have or have not already happened in the past.

It is why Athenians and Romans went to plays and to court cases in the same arenas – because often the participants were the same actors – in one instance re-creating a complete fiction from the mind of an author and in the other instance from the mind of a prosecutor – the difference sometimes being hard to tell.

Page 16- What is an action in law?

Slide 16 then outlines the three basic actions in law that continue today even through the pseudo courts, being citations, complaints and petitions.

The reason I wanted to show this slide again is to remind people that there are several steps required before a proper citation, or complaint or petition is submitted the initiate a case.

In all three cases, a matter cannot be initiated without the properly written testimony of at least one natural person or in propria persona with first hand knowledge of the events as evidence of fact. In other words, the original affidavit supporting a complaint, or citation or petition must be about first hand facts and knowledge, not hearsay. Furthermore, to claim someone broke the law without them actually seeing them break the law is false testimony and perjury.

A person acting as an agent, or sui juris, or the accuser, cannot make a proper Affidavit as a witness, because an original Affidavit must demonstrate clean hands, without prejudice or bias to be acceptable testimony. Thus an arresting officer cannot be both the accuser and witness, but can only make a statement - and that statement can never properly be considered an affidavit because the arresting officer is only speaking as an agent, not as a natural person. Of course, the system is so broken now, that few people within the pseudo courts can even comprehend the difference. 

Page 17- What is proceeding in law?

Moving onto slide 17, we see the six essential steps of processes of standard proceedings in law, beginning with initiation, then service, then hearing, then trial if the matter is serious and the defendant has not opted to waive such rights; then judgment and the option to appeal. This of course is a rough summary and there are numerous differences between civil and criminal matters as well as language between different jurisdictions – yet it holds true for most places held hostage by pseudo courts.

In the interest of time and the fact that we will be returning to the elements repeatedly, I don’t want to spend any more time on this slide now, except to say, for all of us to keep this basic framework in mind as we continue to move forward.

Page 18- What is the proof of legal argument?

Slide 18 is similar in that this is a slide concerning the arguments of law we discussed some weeks ago when discussing the nature of logic, reason and rhetoric. What slide 18 reminds us is that any court matter and any case must prove three essential points of logic to hold true – 1) the legitimacy of the matter; 2) the key issue; and then 3) the facts of the issue. As much as the system has become automated, it cannot avoid these essential points of logic.

Page 19- What is the matter of an argument?

So as is listed on slide 19, the courts list the matter as the case type as an essential element in building the case number. It is already assumed that the courts determine what the matter is and that all parties – including the defendant will be eventually tortured, intimidated, and eviscerated into surrendering to the same case type, the most common being seven, namely:

Appeals such as agencies, parole, criminal, civil
Administrative review and writs
Civil damages
Other civil damages
Family juvenile

Page 20- What is the issue of the argument?

As to slide 20 and the main issue, this relates essentially to the automation of the courts as the case initiation documents – or those documents and arguments considered primary to initiating the case in the first place. It is also the primary service in relation to the case.

Now, ordinarily you would think that if the case initiation documents are essential to the case holding up, but this is not necessarily how the automated system of money making by pseudo courts now work. Statements of witnesses and police go missing, even original complaints and indictments are sometimes re-written, while original error riddled documents are suppressed or hidden and in many places in the United States, there is absolutely no evidence a Grand Jury ever was convened, much less sighted and referred the matter to action. How do they get away with it? Through the tricks and games we will review in a moment.

Page 21- Who are the parties to a legal argument?

Slide 21 reminds us the difference between a legal argument and a personal argument.  In a legal argument, you need three persons being (1) the accuser; and (2) the accused and (3) the witness; whereas in a personal argument, it only involves the accuser and the accused.

It is why, whenever you are stopped by a police officer, it is essential to remember two things:  (1) they want you to confess or agree, so they can be the witness – because a police officer cannot be both accuser and witness in a prosecution; or (2) discredit future evidence in defense proving you gave inconsistent or untruthful answers. So when you answer, or acknowledge, or apologize you admit – you become your own accuser and the police officer can go and write the citation and hand it to you.

Page 22- If no basic agreement, an argument stalls

Finally, slide 22 reminds us again that if there is no basic agreement, an argument stalls and it cannot proceed.  That is why in civil matters, when there is no basic agreement even on the case type, much less the issue, then the matter cannot proceed; whereas once there is concession or agreement on the matter, the issue and the facts – either by admission or negative averment (failing to answer), the matter can proceed, usually in the favor of the plaintiff.

In criminal cases, the matter and the primary issue as the case initiation documents are already decided and it is presumed that simply by your appearance you agree to the matter, the issue and the facts.  We will discuss this absurdity and fraud now in the final section for tonight in the malice and perfidy of modern courts.

Part #3 – The fallacy, malice and perfidy of modern courts

Several weeks ago, we discussed in Session 7 the notion of Logic, Arguments and Rhetoric. In that session, I made clear that law is firmly based on the principles of logic and argument and when logic and reasonable argument are absent, then the law cannot be said to exist.

Indeed, this is also the backbone of all law concerning property, securities and finance and when a system permits such overwhelming fallacies, malice, perfidy and corruption to reign, then such a system ceases to be based on law and only exists upon the cronyism of its supporters and the fear and stupidity of its participants.  It is time therefore to make clear the fallacy, malice and perfidy of modern courts and why no court, I repeat no court under Western-Roman law lower than a Supreme Court can properly be defined as a competent forum, much less a court of law.  All of them are illegitimate and all of them are a complete sham that continue to injure the law, to injure the principles of civilized society and must be brought to account once and for all.

I refer to three slides in particular from our discussions on Logic, Arguments and Rhetoric, namely the logical fallacies of Onus Probandi, Malignare and Perfidum:

Page 24- Logical Fallacy: Unproven Claim

Let us begin with slide 24, and the immutable maxim of Onus Probandi being latin for “the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies or questions the claim”.  What this means is that any system based on the assumption of being culpable on mere accusation without burden of proof is not only absurd, but false, immoral and unlawful- it cannot be considered a lawful, just and proper act.

In other words, the entire system of summary justice since 1848 by Westminster and then exported across the world to be implemented cannot possibly be considered law. It is a blatant lie, falsity, misrepresentation and complete confession of incompetence, insanity and incapacity for any judge, or attorney general, or politician to claim otherwise. Yet when you go to what is claimed to be a court, that is precisely what you face – the assumption of guilt on mere accusation.

Page 25 – Logical Fallacy - Malice

Slide 25 then reminds us that Malignare or Malice stands for a “malicious act” and any act that is deliberately and willfully negative, spiteful, wicked and evil, designed and intended to harm another, whether or not the other man or woman was aware of such behavior.

For example, the overt use of force, currently utilized by police [employees] to arrest people in raids, is often completely disproportionate to the issue(s) in the warrant – even in countries where the suspect is completely unarmed – ultimately being carried out as deliberate and willfully malicious acts, that are sanctioned by government officials.

Similarly, the issuance of summons with such words as “you are commanded to attend”, and not explaining to people that if they do appear, without rebutting the assumption of the summons as a letter of demand prior to “attending”, then they accept themselves as surety automatically on their appearance, or worse – as "attendance", meaning servitude; and "servitude" meaning slavery.

Page 26 – Logical Fallacy - Perfidy

Slide 26 then is a reminder of the logical fallacy of perfidy or perfidum being Latin for a “a deliberately false, dishonest, treacherous act; a breach of trust” is any deliberately and willfully false, dishonest, deceptive, treacherous act, representing a clear and unmistakable breach of trust, whether or not such action was intended for profit; and whether or not the other party was aware of such behavior. So when you ask a judge if they have an interest in the case, they will deny it, even though we can show evidence that virtually every judge and every magistrate is involved in multiple securities frauds in the creation of Fiduciary Bonds for each and every case, where they have a direct interest, contradicting their blatant falsities in their own court. That is fraud. That is breach of trust against every fiduciary bond.

Then there is the fact that the complete basis of creating a case is on the basis of the corporation masquerading as a state government claiming ownership of our name and body and energy as slaves, but when questioned on the issue of ownership or servitude, such officials will vehemently deny, deflect, not respond or divert attention by some false flag action – in order to avoid the obvious – their complete system of pseudo law is based on presumed slavery, not justice.

No one tells the truth in their system. Not the judge or the magistrate, or the bailiff, or the clerk, or the prosecutor, or the sheriff or the police officer – and all of them are trained on a different “belief system” –each one having a different belief system – of automation and now automated computerization so they don’t even know they are lying when they are lying. 

Page 27 – The 2 trusts created on the presumption of guilt

Slide 27 shows the two trusts created the moment a court case is filed, the first being the Fraud Trust or the Issue, being the Case Type, with the State Attorney General or District Attorney or Prosecutor releasing the use of the name so that in this example, everyone in that courtroom is going to be called J Smith – you being the Res, the property, or the Pro Se if you decide to represent yourself.

The second Trust is a Fiduciary Bond Trust created by the judge as debtor, with the state being the creditor; with this being the origin of the uses of the word “charge” in court matters by “charging” the trust certain costs – with the prosecutor being an attorney-in-fact and surety for the charges. There is no named beneficiary of such a Bond Trust.

Now a Fiduciary Bond is essentially supposed to be insurance against the possibility of fraud or embezzlement by a fiduciary, in this case the judge or magistrate. And it is evidence as proof that the judge is supposed to act as a fiduciary to safeguard the interests of another person or entity- but in this case the agency of the corporate government that hired them – not you. The other aspect of Fiduciary Bonds is that they are created under the absurdity of probate under Admiralty, whereby the estate of the accused is treated as a deceased estate; as we have been saying over and over and over again for decades now.

Page 28 – The 3rd trust created on contract surety bond

Slide 28 then shows that as soon as the accused appears, the goal of the court is to establish contract for the charges and create a third trust known as a Surety Bond Trust where the Judge is the Principal, the Prosecutor is the Obligee and the Accused is the Surety. Such a contract normally involves two (2) bonds within the same Surety Bond Trust, the first being a bid bond, or the Bail Bond, accounting for the first years’ premium due upon the Fiduciary Bond Trust, the second bond of the Surety Bond Trust being the performance bond or Prison Bond.

Now as a general rule, the Bail fee is usually ten percent (10%) the value of the charges; whereas the total debt of the Fiduciary Bond is between three to five times the value of the charges. For example, a routine traffic stop will be listed in most places as a Bail of about $500 under uniform bail standards – all in plain sight. Therefore, a single charge will be calculated as an asset on filing the Fiduciary Bond of about $5,000, while the value of the Estate, as the total debt of the bond will be between $15,000 to $25,000.

In terms of the Performance Bond of the surety trust – the third (3rd) trust – if someone is thrown into prison – and I’m using the United States as the example – most states calculate a deduction of $100 per day for performance as surety back to the fiduciary bond, where a body is housed in a prison as warehouse for surety; and most misdemeanor charges will range around $5,000, so you are looking at the magic number of between fifty and sixty days for the Fiduciary Bond to be paid for and discharged.

Page 29 – 3 ways courts trick people into accepting liability

So how do people respond to this knowledge? Well for one thing, I remind everyone looking at the slides and listening that anyone who claims that magic pieces of paper can save you, is only going to make matters worse, because the contract for surety is almost always verbal and if you have not done the work to learn and become competent, then nothing can save you.

I will be discussing affidavits next week and their power, along with the concepts of special appearance and bonds, and what you can do. But before then, you need to recognize what is happening to contract you as surety.

When a police officer or judge asks, “do you understand the charges?” they are offering you to contract as surety, without all the facts. If you say “no”, then they process the bond anyway with you being “determined” to be a belligerent or suffering some mental incapacity. So arguments of “I do not consent” have no effect against this automated system anymore.

There is only one way to answer unreasonable demands – by responding with questions that highlight the unreasonableness and absurdity and cruelty of what they are doing. For example:

Judge: Do you understand the charges against you?”

Accused: “Will you be disclosing to me the essential facts to this matter first, so I can reasonably answer that question?”


“How can anyone reasonably be expected to answer such a question if they be denied the basic right[(s)] of disclosure of all the facts first?”

The point I am trying to make here is that knowledge is the only key – a fact that I have said throughout this series. All the fake remedies, all the fake claims have been deliberately or unwittingly promoted out there to confuse you, to distract you and to enable this fraud to continue. So when will you stop running to claims of paper solution and really listen and comprehend this knowledge of this series of The Law Explained first?

The only viable solution for restoration of Golden Rule of Law is Ucadia

The only viable solution for restoration of the Golden Rule of law is Ucadia. The only solution to your state and where you are and what you face is the knowledge that we are sharing. 

So we are going to be looking at templates and practical examples, but tonight, made even more crystal clear than ever before, you now know what you are dealing with – automation, built in ignorance, deliberate willful lying, malice, perfidy and absurdity.

To all of you who listen, I want to say thank you. To all of you who have studied and been listening to the series, I thank you for your patience and your diligence in becoming more competent. To those of you who recognize the safe harbor of Ucadia as the only place where gifts, donations and deposits can then be converted into real credit to be utilized in services in the future – thank you. And for those of you who are and have been willing to step up and support now, I thank you also. Your support and endorsement has enabled this series to continue and for Ucadia to continue. So I thank you for your help.

To all of you who have been reading and listening, I wish you to be safe and to be well. Until we speak again next week, thank you and good night.

Cheers, Frank