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