Friday, September 25, 2015

The Law Explained: Session 12 – Fraud and Debt

Please download MP3 Audio Broadcast of this Blog > here (62  min 24 Mb)

Hello, this is Frank O’Collins and welcome to Session 12  of the series on The Law Explained and the topic tonight being the subjects of Fraud and Debt; and what is the nature of Fraud? And what is so important about comprehending the concept of Fraud in the context of Trusts and every single court case, whether or not Fraud is acknowledged? Also tonight, we will be discussing specific aspects of Debt; and the different types of Debt within the present system. And what are the implications of that debt in all our lives?

Last week we discussed in Session 11, on the series of “The Law Explained”, the critically important concepts around Jurisdiction and Inquisition within their system: The concepts around Police Arrest and Interview; and the concepts around Jurisdiction and Appearance. So I hope you have had the opportunity to read and listen to Session 11 and in particular to review the slides and key concepts discussed, given they are so fundamental to matters relating to the present court system.

If you have not had the chance to read and listen to Session 11 on Jurisdiction and Inquisition yet, then I urge you to go and read and listen to this Session first before starting on the discussion tonight on Fraud and Debt. In fact, if you have not yet had the opportunity to read and listen to the entire 11 parts of “The Law Explained” series so far, then please take the time to go back to the beginning and read and listen carefully.

Every part contains crucially important information and is explained in such a way to hopefully help you comprehend subjects that you may not fully have comprehended in the past. Remember also, just because this information is given to you freely and without charge, does not make it less valuable than the information that hundreds of claimed remedy gurus continue to try and sell people, sometimes for thousands of dollars, each and every day.

In fact, the time for remedy gurus charging other people for information concerning the law needs to come to an end, now that such truth is readily available and easy to comprehend with this Ucadia series. What utter madness drives people to spend sometimes tens of thousands of dollars with fakes, and liars and sometimes deeply mentally ill people who claim to have some special “inside knowledge” of the law when in truth they know nothing at all; and in most cases, make matters manifestly worse for you and for others?

If you do not trust what I am saying is true, then I challenge you to carefully read and listen to the 11 part series on “The Law Explained” that is provided here, free of charge. Then, when you have gone through these first 11 parts, before the discussion tonight, I want you to ask yourself some simple questions – have any of these con-artists, disinformation agents, liars and maniacs that claim to have legal remedies ever explained clearly any of the key concepts properly as this series does? Have any of them been able to cite the context and origin of concepts, what they mean and why? Have any of them been able to show you hundreds of practical opportunities to improve your legal position that actually mean something? Or is this information the kind of information they don’t ever want to speak about; and thus, they never offer you this foundation of law?

The noise coming from these professional liars, con-artists and snake oil sales people over the past few months in the face of “The Law Explained” series has been deafening silence. Complete denial that this information exists. Complete silence that one can truly become competent in law and in their own affairs merely by reading and listening to this information without paying thousands of dollars to some impostor. Not a word, not even the re-posting of this information. Just silence as if they pretend it does not exist.

Yet this information now does exist; and it is real; and it works; and it is not fake. And to those people who previously used to tell lies and sell fake remedies that acknowledge they need to stop what they are doing and start teaching people the truth about the law explained, I say thank you and I extend my deepest respect to those of you willing to change and help people, rather than cause more people to be thrown into prison or lose everything because of following ludicrous and fake information.

If you feel the information on “the Law Explained” series has helped you, then of course you can do what a number of you have already done and show your appreciation by making some kind of donation to Ucadia. But it is your free will and choice. Just as you have the free will and choice to ignore the years of research and tireless work to bring this information to you; and to simply take it and use it without charge – that is entirely your choice. Or you can show the kind of moral decency and good conscience that is so often lacking and actually make a contribution of some kind to Ucadia to help this material and research continue. It is entirely your choice.

In any event, tonight, we are going to focus on the key concepts around the notion of Fraud as well as the concept of Debt, particularly the function of Fraud Trusts and why the present legal system cannot avoid the truth of both of these concepts in what they are doing. I will also be providing some additional information about Appearance, specifically the idea of Notices of Appearance that can be provided via mail to a court ahead of time; and the importance of this process in having all your “ducks in a row” before you come to court.

Now, after last week and Session 11 on Jurisdiction and Inquisition, I was all set to speak with you about addressing Foreclosures and Evictions and how to overcome such traumatic experiences and what you can do – until I realized in reflection on the past 11 sessions of “The Law Explained” series that we had not properly discussed in detail the nature of the concept of Fraud and indeed the notions around Debt. Given the notion of Fraud and the notion of Debt are so interconnected to any matter before a court such as a Foreclosure or Credit Card case or Loan or even Tax matter, I realized that I can’t really start to speak about Foreclosures and Evictions until you have a better grasp on the true meanings of Debt and concept of counter-debt or “Set-Offs” as well as the construct of Fraud Trusts and cases.

In many respects, people have been battling to defend themselves in court with both hands tied behind their backs, and with a thousand pounds of weight tied around their ankles, because not only have they not known the basic nature of such essential concepts as person; or the structure of cases; or the knowledge of jurisdiction and appearance; or evidence and affidavits; or argument and logic; and of course the concepts of fraud and debt, but they have also frequently misdirected their focus against the wrong party, such as the one that provides the goods, rather than the one holding the role of trustee that failed to perform his or her duties by providing you proper account information.

If you have listened to and read any of “The Law Explained” series so far, then I hope by now it is abundantly clear you are not dealing with a fair or honest or just system through modern commercial and “for profit” courts. Such corporations have become so corrupt and so automated that people have very little chance of seeing any kind of positive result, even if they know exactly what is going on and why. So how on earth can anyone expect a positive result when you do not even know the essential concepts you are discussing in the first place? This is precisely the paradox of the discussion about debt. There have always been two traditional meanings of the word debt and one of them implies you are a delinquent and are in dishonor. Now the two definitions are fused together, yet they remain distinct concepts, despite the deliberate confusion and obfuscation of legal dictionaries. If you allow yourself to be tricked into a position of being delinquent and in dishonor, then your chance of any kind of positive result is minimized further. So it is vital that we truly comprehend what debt actually means? Its origin of meaning in law; and what it still means today?

Similarly, since the 18th Century, there has been the legitimate remedy, even in the face of being accused as a debtor, to Set-Off such alleged debts against valid debts owed to us. This is not the concept of Accepted-for-Value (A4V), being a deliberately false and insane and wrong concept invented years ago to confuse people. There are occasions when debts can be discharged through endorsement back to the agent – but these are extremely limited and are connected to comprehending the relations of persons – and have nothing to do with the fake and stupid and dangerously insane disinformation called Accepted-for-Value (A4V). In fact the promoters of such false concepts of A4V have caused terrible damage around the world, by deliberately confusing and mixing up concepts, misrepresenting maxims and precedents of law and basically lying to people. So tonight, we need to clear up this mess and explain once and for all what Set-Off means and how it may assist us in difficult matters.

Before we start, let us have a look at a brief summary of what we discussed in Session 11 on Jurisdiction and Inquisition.

Part #1 – Notices of Appearance

Page 3 – Review of Key Points from Session 11

Session 11 on Jurisdiction and Inquisition presented some crucial knowledge on how to handle the extremely stressful experience of police arrest, police raids and police interviews, while still respecting that the vast majority of police are themselves decent people. We also discussed some rarely comprehended procedural issues concerning court and the nature of Jurisdiction and Appearance; and why, when people forget or ignore these procedures, they effectively “hand over” control to the opposing side by effectively admitting they are incompetent, and idiots and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the court. So without going through everything again, let us have a look at some highlights as per slide 3:

Police have three primary goals being (1) obtain confession; and (2) form a contract and (3) discredit any alternate testimony; and that when faced even with the most intimidatory circumstances of raids and arrest, there is a way to handle ones self; 

No one can properly force you to make testimony or enter a contract if they refuse to divulge the facts; 

Jurisdiction is two things (1) authority of a forum to administer justice; and (2) authority of jurist to sit and hear and interpret the law of such a forum; 

Appearance is two things (1) physical presence; and (2) formal capacity & character of defendant coming to a valid forum of law to resolve a legal argument;

A defendant must submit some memorandum of appearance on the day to identify their capacity and character of defense (i.e. attorney-in-fact, or advocate-of-law, or self representation PRO SE);

There are two types of Appearance (1) Special challenges the jurisdiction of court; and (2) General as acceptance and submission to jurisdiction of court.

Page 4 – Notice of Special Appearance – Registered Post

Now, before we get into some important revision of concepts to address the topic of Session 12 tonight being Fraud and Debt, I want to address a follow on to the discussions of last week concerning the concept of Appearance, as outlined on slide 4.

As I just mentioned in the quick and brief summary of Session 11, Appearance is not only the physical presence at the court on the day of the hearing or trial or mention, but also the procedural memorandum and notification of the court by the defense as to the claimed standing and character of the defense. It is now time to discuss an extension of that knowledge in matters where a summons is issued by the mail or has been served by another party ahead of a proposed court date. It is called Notice of Appearance, or in this case Notice of Special Appearance.

As I mentioned last week, if there is no possibility of receiving a logical or fair hearing and that overwhelmingly there is evidence the court has no jurisdiction, then you may seek to respond with a Notice of Special Appearance, supported by a properly formed Affidavit in the manner described in Session 10 on the Law Explained Series; and finally a series of questions called Interrogatories that go to the heart of the challenge of jurisdiction.

However, be warned. Unless you are 100% competent and knowledgeable back-to-front and front-to-back on the knowledge presented in this series, and are capable of being calm and collected under fire, you are effectively “poking a bear in the eye with a stick” when challenging as special appearance, and do not expect an easy process.

On the other hand, if you have clear evidence of existing dishonor by the other side and clear omissions within their claim, plus evidence of counter claim, then you may choose to use the Notice of Appearance as the delivery mechanism of your intentions up front to the court, so there can be no automatic default or white-washing of your evidence. In the end, it is your choice. However, I urge you to consider very carefully what you do, because there is the possibility of having matters dismissed and discharged while still accepting General Appearance if done properly.

So the key points I will mention about the Notice of Appearance or Notice of Special Appearance is that it is your opportunity to get the surety and details of any Attorney-In-Fact or Advocate-Of-Law into their system, plus the fact that your Affidavit is your response and challenge.

Page 5 – Notice of Appearance - Affidavit

As to your Affidavit as per slide 5, remember the purpose of an Affidavit is to provide testimony given under oath in a form acceptable to their system, providing facts and proof (or annexures) based on first hand evidence and knowledge that is NOT hearsay, or opinion, or conspiracy or conjecture.

I showed the key elements of this in Session 10 as well as referring to the section on Affidavits under Fiduciary Law on the website One-Heaven.Org. You might like to also review Session 7 on Logic and Argument.

What I didn’t include in Session 10 was the necessity to include a clause at the end of your affidavit and before any listing of annexures as the last numbered paragraph of the main body that effectively disarms any claim of an error rendering the entire affidavit void. I actually discussed this logical fallacy in Session 7 and it is an old trick of private bar guild members to eliminate affidavits they do not like – to pick on one error to claim the whole affidavit is false. So please consider words similar to the ones below:

All the facts and circumstances deposed herein are within my own first-hand knowledge and expertise except such as are deposed herein from information only in accord with my reasonable knowledge and sources of information as appear within the present Affidavit. In the event that any provision or wording of the present Affidavit is held to be invalid or unenforceable at law, such provision or wording shall hereby be severed from the present Affidavit to the extent that such provision or wording is void, or invalid or unenforceable. Furthermore, any such ruling shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remainder of the present Affidavit.

The point I want to emphasize clearly before we move ahead is the continuing madness and stupidity as people ignore what has been expressed in the likes of Session 10 on testimony and evidence, and still copy and paste templates on the internet full of rubbish, misconstrued allegations, opinions, conspiracies and the kitchen sink, and think that this is somehow a valid affidavit. So I will say it again so that there can be no misunderstanding by those who seem incapable of self-restraint and common-sense – if you ignore Ucadia and continue to follow false remedy gurus and continue to file rubbish as affidavits, then not only will you lose, but you will probably lose everything and also probably go to jail. You have been warned now repeatedly and so if a court throws the book at you, it will be completely your fault and no one else for being so stupid – Because if you listened to this series and followed what is outlined, then you would know exactly how to formulate a proper affidavit.

Page 6 – Notice of Appearance - Interrogatories 

This brings me to slide 6 and the last points on Notice of Appearance and the question of Interrogatories. Whenever you receive a summons to appear or attend, Interrogatories are a very powerful and important element to consider.

Interrogatories are formal questions given to a party in a matter accompanied by an Affidavit that must be answered under oath and truthfully; or the implication of the question will stand as fact if unanswered or not disputed.

In most western jurisdictions, there is the requirement of the plaintiff issuing the summons to provide disclosure to the opposing parties as part of their claim. Of course, this is not always the case; and courts increasingly have modified their own procedures to add more and more examples where such disclosure is deemed unnecessary.

So what this means in practice is that if you do choose to appear under general appearance and submit to the jurisdiction of the court, then you are faced with being judged on incomplete evidence; against a plaintiff that may very well have not disclosed all the facts. What do you do? This is where properly formed interrogatories are essential.

Virtually every jurisdiction of court permits interrogatories in civil matters. If you are sending a Notice of Special Appearance, your Interrogatories will be directed at the court, so you need to be even more competent and careful in your wording.

Interrogatories are not an opportunity to score points, or make further unsubstantiated allegations, or unproven presumptions. Remembering, in most jurisdictions the limit of questions – including all sub parts is 25 or less – unless the court grants follow up questions. So please do not be tricked by many of the false and fake and poorly designed examples of interrogatories on the internet.

Instead, consider the following key elements:

Interrogatories begin with making clear the source of authority within the statutes or codes or procedures of the court that permit you to issue such a document.

Secondly, interrogatories must include essential definitions – not exhaustive – but at least those terms defining the parties, the issues and the terms most commonly used in the interrogatories.

Thirdly, interrogatories must include instructions – based on the actual procedures and rules of the court – on how to answer them, the deadline to answer, and what a non-answer constitutes. Usually, the deadline date is 30 days from service. If you are responding to a summons within 28 days or 14 days, do not worry, because if you have the interrogatories properly served – then you have the grounds for an immediate continuance, via motion, to be granted on the day stated on the summons, if you are accepting general appearance. The court must grant you protection from any further interaction with the plaintiff until the plaintiff has answered the interrogatories.

If you are issuing interrogatories as part of a special appearance, then either the matter should be re-scheduled or continued. But be careful. A Notice of Special Appearance still follows procedures of court to the extent of courtesy to the court until the question of jurisdiction is proven or disproven. Therefore, do not be tricked by fake remedy gurus that suggest you can make it up as you go along. You cannot.

Finally, when framing questions, keep in mind the implications if not answered. As I mentioned, do not destroy such an important element of response by including questions based on unproven or unsubstantiated claims, conspiracies or scandal, as it will hurt you, not help you. Instead, use this element of procedural remedy to obtain the disclosure that is needed to be able to adequately defend your matter; or respectfully and properly challenge the jurisdiction of the court, whatever the case may be.

Part #2 – Quick Review on Key Concepts

Now that we have outlined the second part of new information concerning Appearance, I want to review a number of Key Concepts we have previously discussed – some at length – in this series on the law Explained, that are essential to our ability to comprehend the notions surrounding the concept of Fraud as well as Debt. 

Page 8 – Law always involves the tribunal of persons

I will begin with slide 8 as the same slide I mentioned last week in Session 11 on Jurisdiction and Inquisition, and the fact that the Law always involves the tribunal of persons.

As we have now discussed repeatedly, 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”. This is not intrinsically “evil” or “bad” or “unfair”, it is actually logical and common sense.

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

This notion of the tribunal of persons is at the very heart of the modern legal system in the pseudo form of the “sacrament of penance” as a “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.

Page 9 – Law always involves one or more Estates

Given that law always involves persons, it means that law always involves one or more Estates as shown on slide 9, being records in a roll, creating persons associated with rights.

In almost all cases, the courts that you will be dealing with only have jurisdiction over personal property of things, and not the real property of agents, much less official property of the government. Those powers are reserved for much higher courts such as the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, or the Court of Chancery in Delaware, or the Privy Council in Great Britain.

Page 10 – The law is necessarily fictional

It is also important to remind ourselves yet again that the Law is necessarily fictional, as per slide 10. 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. 

Page 11 – Law always involves Argument

Similarly, it is also important to remind ourselves as per slide 11, that Law always involved some Argument being the process of establishing and validating the proof of one or more claimed facts.

As we have discussed previously in this series, the word argument itself, comes from the Latin term arguo meaning “I show, prove, assert, declare, make clear; or I reprove, accuse, charge with; or I blame, censure; or I denounce as false”. In other words, the ancient Latin concept of argument remains very similar to its use today.

As slide 11 shows, all formal Arguments have three essential components: Matter, Issue and Facts. The foundational reasoning used to establish Argument is LOGIC either by Deductive or Inductive Logic. An Argument always involves a minimum of 2 persons. A Legal Argument always involves a minimum of 3 persons – as we just said a moment ago about the “tribunal of persons”.

Page 12 – Law depends upon Logic and Reason

So, given Argument is always part of Law, slide 12 reminds us that the Law always depends upon Logic and Reason to prove Matter, Issue and Facts. The law may make a distinction between the question of fairness as a matter of equity; and now something specialized in certain types of courts being courts of equity or courts of chancery; and courts of procedural law – yet all courts depend upon logic and reason to function.

Page 13 – Law always involves process of form, cause and action

Thus, as slide 13 reminds us, yet again, law always involves process and procedure of form, cause and action. There must always be the written testimony in some form by 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 needed 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 initiated by a plaintiff must include an affidavit of the accuser, the affidavit of at least one witness, an indictment and a citation. Such a right pre-supposes some form of agreement, or charter, or warrant or patent granting such a right in the first place. 

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 – usually as a bill of rights.

If a person possesses neither a right of action nor 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.

Page 14 – Law always involves one or more Rights

As we have mentioned, slide 14 reminds us that Law always involves one or more Rights, with a Right being an Ecclesiastical, Moral or Legal Capacity, Privilege, Liberty, Faculty or Power, and associated obligations, remedy, relief and exceptions held in Trust.

Page 15 – Types of Rights

Slide 15 then reminds us of the types of Rights that may or may not be involved in an argument of law.

Page 16 – Law always involves one or more Trusts

Slide 16 emphasizes what is a Trust. As we have spoken previously, law always involves rights that are always held in trust; and that law always involves estates being persons of various statuses holding certain rights in trust. Thus, a trust is the formation of an office of trust or “trustee” formed by a promise to the terms of trust to take possession of certain Rights, and perform certain Obligations for the Benefit of Another.

Page 17 – The 2 different states of Beneficiary

Slide 17 then shows us again the two different states of Beneficiary in relation to Trusts, being either named or unnamed.

When the Beneficiary is named, a Principal-Agent relation is established and the agent effectively provides a service.

But when the Beneficiary is unnamed, the Benefit goes to the Creditor; and the liability remains with the Trustee as Debtor, while the unnamed beneficiary is given a “Good”.

Page 18 – Procedural Law always involves Property

When it comes to Procedural Law concerning the Right of Action, or the Right of Exception, then Slide 18 reminds us that such administrative law always involves some form of property. Here in this slide, we see the circle of comprehension return by our knowledge now of exactly what an Estate is; as well as what Property is – being a negotiable right attached to a person.

Page 19 – Five conditions that end a Trust

Finally, slide 19, reminds us of the five main conditions that cause the end of a Trust, namely Dissolution, Satisfaction, Termination, Falsification (Cessation) or Annulment.  Tonight, we will be speaking more about the conditions associated with Falsification, or more commonly known as Fraud; and how the presumptions and conditions of such an end of a trust work; and how courts then address outstanding rights, issues, penalties and punishments in the context of Fraud.

Part #3 – Goods and Chattels

Now, I realize that there is a lot to absorb and remember concerning past concepts around law, procedure of law, estates, persons, trusts, property and so on, before we even speak about fraud and debt. Yet I hope you see why it has been so important to recall these concepts in the order we have. Because, if we didn’t remind ourselves what we know as the foundations of law, then we might remain deeply confused or misinformed about subjects that are vital in comprehending debt. Take the notion of Goods and Chattels for example.

Before we can speak about Debt and even Fraud, we need to first speak about the notion of Goods and Chattels; and what are Goods and what are Chattels? This is because the concept of Debt is directly associated from its very origin with the notions of Goods and Chattels of a Personal Estate, not Real Estate. As Debts are and have always been associated with the notion of Goods. 

Let me explain quickly: Land under the Western-Roman Systems is the only real asset there is; because land means people as something that can be owned. It is the source of the creation of all financial instruments and money. Its existence is essential in such a system for any subsequent derivative like an Annuity attached to a Cestui Que Vie Trust to exist.

So logically, as debt is a derivative of a contract and a contract is a derivative of a person and a person is a derivative of the physical man or woman as Land; and therefore debts can only be associated with personal estates and NOT real estates or official estates.

Page 21 – What are Goods?

Let us have a look at slide 21. The notion of Goods has two essential meanings: the first is a gift; and the second is a promise associated with a beneficial Right of Use for Sale or Bargain. Thus, an exchange of Goods can mean:

(a) An Exchange of gifts between a buyer and a seller; or

(b) An Exchange of a gift of a seller with a promise of a buyer; or

(c) An Exchange of promises between a buyer and a seller.

The original Latin word for Promise was bona meaning “promise”. Hence, Bona Fide in respect of trusts also translates literally as a “promise in trust” or an enforceable promise. By the 17th Century, the word bona was replaced by the word goods meaning a “promise or gift to or from God”.

As the diagram shows, this is somewhat of a different concept to what we are used to thinking. As consumers, we are trained to think of goods in terms of the actual house, or car, or groceries – not the rights in trust that are attached behind them. Yet that is what precisely it is.

Page 22 – What are Chattels?

Another word that is traditionally associated with Goods is the word Chattels. The meaning of Chattels is frequently formed as a circular reference with Goods, so when you try to find the meaning of Goods, you get “chattels” and when you look at the definition of Chattels you get “goods”.

Let me end this circular madness once and for all and define what the legal dictionaries can’t tell you. Chattels means literally “Animals and Slaves as Goods as well as the Goods of Slaves for Sale and Bargain”.

The true original Latin word for Chattel is Catal/Catalla (the same origin for Cattle) meaning “beasts of burden”. So there is no hiding what it means, despite some artful attempts by some dictionaries.

Chattels are then defined into two broad categories, Real Chattels and Personal Chattels.

Real Chattels are the Interests of Animals, Insolvent Debtors, Criminals and Slaves leased for years as property to corporations for profit. Typically, the criminal banking landlord retains “Chattel Interest” – in other words no effectual title passes from the creditor to debtor, but the creditor retains the right to the slaves that the debtor never had.

Personal Chattels are the personal property of Insolvent Debtors, Criminals and Slaves that may be seized as bounty, prize or profit.

I am not going to spend too much more time on Chattels as “The Law Explained” series has done enough in outlining the basis of the Western Model and its deep traditional and negative roots that are in need of reform.

Page 23 – What is a Sale?

Now, I mentioned that there are two methods for transferring Goods being either by Sale or Bargain. This should immediately spark what appears to be an anomaly for people when you consider that simple barter seems like an obvious method of exchange. The reason why Goods cannot be bartered will become obvious again in a moment. But for now, let us look at slide 23 and the notion of what is a Sale?

A Sale is essentially when the title to a thing is given in Trust to another in exchange for a price of lawful money, also given in trust. A Sale always involves two distinct trusts having two distinct trust corpus – one where the buyer is trustee and one where the seller is trustee. It is only when the sale is completed do the two separate trusts dissolve, providing the conditions of sale make that possible. In other words, there are ALWAYS at least two trusts associated with a sale.

The terms and nature of a sale therefore can be defined by three primary variables, namely: whether the sale is conditional or absolute; or public or private; or voluntary or judicial. The concept of an involuntary sale is an absurdity that should not be permitted to even be entertained in law; and has only arisen out of the sheer incompetence of certain jurists to even the most basic notions of law.

Page 24 – What is a Bargain?

The second form of exchange associated with Goods is the concept of Bargain as per slide 24. A Bargain is a Contract of Mutual Bindings (Promises) as Security whereby one party promises to assign a right as property for some consideration; and the other party promises to receive the property and take good care of it and pay the consideration.

Similar to a Sale, with a Bargain there MUST be two Trusts for a Bargain to exist: The one for the Buyer and one for the Seller. However, a Bargain is NOT a transfer of title, but a Bailment of Goods for some financial consideration. The Seller never gifts the property like a Sale and the terms of Consideration may also involve some return of a Bailment of Money. Hence, the key operating element of a Bargain is the Mutual Binding Promises that are also called Debts.

That is right. There are two debts associated with any valid Bargain: The debt of the buyer and the debt of the seller. Just as there are two valid trusts and two valid trustees (Buyer and Seller) and two debtor-creditor relations with the two trusts.

Unfortunately, when arguments over Bargains end up going to court, such language as Obligor and Obligee are used; and the notion that there must be two trusts for a valid Bargain (as well as Sale) is completely ignored.

How is this possible? Because courts are granted the power to transform the nature of reality into a world of things – where white can be legally turned black, and good can be turned bad – within limits of logic, reason and the ignorance of the parties and the public generally. Thus unilateral adhesion contracts exist only within the world of courts and the minds of gullible people. All other valid contracts must be mutual agreements.

Page 24 – What are Inchoate Instruments?

Inchoate Instruments are those begun but unfinished or not completed – such as a contract not executed with all necessary provisions by all parties. 

Inchoate Instruments are only good between the parties to the extent that both choose to perform. I will be discussing the importance of the knowledge of Inchoate Instruments in the coming additions to the series on the Law Explained.

Part #4 – Fraud

Page 27 – What is Fraud?

It is now time to look at slide 27 and a summary of what exactly is Fraud? Fraud may be defined simply as "financial advantage gained by unfair means". There are three broad categories:  Personal, Constructive and Statutory.

Personal Fraud

Also known as  Actual and Moral = when one person Causes pecuniary injury to Another by intentionally. Misrepresenting or concealing a material fact that they were bound to explain or disclose. Examples include misrepresentation, concealment and by matters subsequent.

Constructive Fraud

Also known as Legal = where no wrongful intention is proved but that fraud is presumed from circumstances and the court seizes the right/rights in question to determine the outcome. ALL COURT CASES ARE BASED ON CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD.

Statutory Fraud

Where certain acts are made fraud by statute and prohibited. In most court cases, Statutory Fraud as a means to prevent an action or highlight and action is fraudulent requires knowledge of the statute and its proper inclusion in evidence.

As to Constructive Fraud as Fraud Trusts, please have a look at Article 84 under Positive Law and Canon 1914 and the context of Fraud Trusts.

Part #5 – Debt

Page 29 – What is Debt?

So now that we have defined the context of Fraud, what is the true meaning of Debt?

Looking at slide 29, debt may be defined as two elements: (1) A Binding Promise; and (2) A Right of Action (in Court) upon delinquency

(1) Binding Promise 

From Latin Debeo = “to owe; to be bound”

A solemn obligation under contract. A binding promise under Bargain.

(2) Right of Action

From Latin Debito  = “a writ (right of action) upon default”: 

(a) payment of sum of money due for Goods sold (under Bargain) or 

(b) Payment of penalty/compensation on failure to perform

Under a Bargain, strictly speaking there are two Debts. The one owed by the Buyer and the one owed by the Seller.

The absence of two sets of paperwork of binding promises either implies an INCHOATE agreement and thus, can be withdrawn; or a FRAUD and therefore the basis of pursuing penalty for failure to perform.

Hopefully now you see the power and logic of Set-Off - not because the present system is being nice, but the fact that it cannot ignore the real possibility of an opposing and equally valid debt to the one being pursued by the bank or other institution.

We will have a lot more to say about this as we move through the series on the "Law Explained" and financial contracts and the fact that almost 90%+ of major financial institution contracts are inchoate, or deliberately incomplete.

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

The only viable solution for restoring Justice and True Rule of Law is Ucadia. As I said last week, I know that some people the may find these statements confronting. However, I urge you to re-listen to the complete series on the law explained, to read the complete canons of law and codes of law of Ucadia and read what is already in place such as Article 6 of the constitutional charter of the Americas Union and all the Ucadia Unions.

There is no other model. There is none. Only a few fakes and fake claims – many that owe their existence to stealing and robbing information, like typical pirates, from Ucadia in the first place. That is why, those few of you, who have shown the courage and fortitude to donate and contribute to help Ucadia continue are such heroes. Because you know this is making a difference; and because you know the time is now.

So to all of you who continue to read, to listen, to support and donate to, and assist Ucadia – Thank You.

Until we speak in the next few weeks, please be safe and well.

Monday, September 14, 2015

The Law Explained: Session 11 – Jurisdiction & Inquisition

Please download MP3 Audio Broadcast of this Blog > here (84 min 29 Mb)

Hello, this is Frank O’Collins and welcome to Session 11 of the series on The Law Explained and the topic tonight being key issues around Jurisdiction such as Arrest, Appearance, Attendance and Summons; and issues around the concept of Inquisition such as Police Interviews and going to Court. Tonight, I want to discuss again why modern Western-Commercial Courts will never ever recognize you as anything other than Pro Se, being short for the Latin phrase Pro Se In Rem or “I am a thing; I am the holder of beneficial title”; and What really is the false magic behind a court summons?; and What does court appearance and court attendance actually mean and entail?; and How to conduct yourself in the Western-Commercial court process of inquisition?; and finally How to address police interviews, occasions of police breaking and enter and arrest; and How to avoid the deliberate traps the present system sets in order to get away with their behavior.

It has been a few weeks since I discussed with you Session 10 on Testimony and Evidence, so I thank you for your patience and hope that you have had the opportunity to read and listen to not only Session 10, but all the previous sessions on this incredibly important series on the Law Explained. 

If you have not yet had the opportunity to read and listen to the complete series on the Law Explained, then I implore you to take the time to go and read and listen to each of the blogs and audios and slide presentations before embarking on this latest Session. As I mentioned in Session 10, each session of this series on the Law Explained is like providing you with crucial pieces of a giant puzzle –and tonight yet again will be no exception. Within each session, I have continued to provide you with practical knowledge as vital pieces. Yet I feel there is no other way to present such information as clearly or as concisely or as logically as has been done through the 10 part series to date. 

So if you do not take the time to read and listen to the previous sessions, then it is almost certain you will not have many of the crucial pieces of the puzzle that defines the present system of Western Law – even if you think you do. In fact, if you are approaching this material with pre-existing filters of possible arrogance or even intellectual laziness, then you risk missing the very real gems of practical knowledge throughout this series. Additionally, many of you have let me know that it is only after several reads and re-reads and listening more than once, have you gained the greatest insight to this invaluable knowledge – not because the slide packs are overly complex, but simply because it has taken time to empty your minds of all the “red herrings”, the “blind alleys”, the “false claims” that still litter the truth movement.

To those of you that have persisted in reading and listening to the Law Explained Series; and have overcome the false claims and absurd arguments that have so littered our previous perspective on Western law and the court system, I thank you for your courage. I particularly thank those few of you people, with the financial capacity, the good conscience and moral decency who have donated to Ucadia over the past few months in support of this work and what Ucadia is about. I know it is not easy surviving in this present madness of a world of artificial scarcity, where we are each forced to have less and less capital, while large corporations have never been more wealthy. That is why those of you who have donated what you can to help Ucadia have made such a positive impact, not only because your financial contributions have helped keep Ucadia running, but because your donations are a sign to all heaven and earth that you actually care about positive change for everyone.

It is a strange thing when you think about it: How long have people cried out for knowledge and truth of how to free themselves of the torture and pain of the modern court and legal system? How often have we cried out to know how to be free of the matrix of Mundi madness? Now that the cure is presented in such a clear and concise way, something almost Biblical has happened. Those same people who have cried the loudest for help are nowhere to be seen. They have neither cared to acknowledge the power of the wisdom of these practical revelations, nor felt even a bit inclined to support Ucadia. In the Bible, there is the story of the ten lepers that were cured, yet only one came back to acknowledge any kind of gratitude. In the case of Ucadia, the odds are much closer to one in one hundred.

Yet there has been good and solid feedback, like some feedback I received earlier this week when someone spoke about the impact of Session 10 and their former sense of fear when driving because of the unknown surrounding random traffic stops. It isn’t that this particular individual drives above the speed limit, or even drives without a license, it is that they have been living with this sense of fear around traffic stops because of what they have heard and seen; and because they did not know what is truly going on. Thanks to the information within Session 10 on this series, the person said that they no longer have that sense of fear.

However, there are many other areas where people still have fear – the fear of some midnight raid by some heavily armed SWAT type group to drag someone off to a cell to be charged and railroaded in court; or a less dramatic arrest; or even the process of a police interview; or even the process of going to court itself. For many people, these fears are what primarily stop them from moving forward, and keeping them unsettled. Tonight, I want to continue where we left off on Session 10 and address some of these specific issues to help.

Most of all, I want to make sure that all of you, who have shown the respect and patience to read and listen to the Sessions on the Law Explained thus far, have a sound and as solid a footing as possible before we get into individual issues such as foreclosures, credit cards, fines and taxes and other pressing issues many of you are facing. By having such a solid footing, I hope that many of you are able to already review what you did wrong in the past and learn from your mistakes as well better comprehend how to avoid such mistakes in the future.

Before we start, let us have a look at a brief summary of what we discussed in Session 10 on Testimony and Evidence.

Part #1 – Quick Review on Key Concepts

Page 3 – Review of Key Points from Session 10

Four weeks ago, we discussed in detail key notions around the concepts of Testimony and Evidence and the absolute importance of properly formed Affidavits; and why our testimony remains the most important and powerful evidence. Let us have a look at some highlights as per slide 3.

That Evidence is any accepted means in argument employed for the purpose of proving one or more alleged facts;

That Testimony is first hand or expert evidence of an accuser, or accused or witness made under oath or affirmation;

That Police have three primary goals being (1) obtain confession; and (2) form a contract and (3) discredit any future appearance or argument by exposing inconsistencies;

That when faced even with the intimidatory sight of police at the door, there is a way to handle one’s self without fear or rudeness;

That properly formed Affidavits are essential as both testimony and fact;

Page 4 – Law Always Involves the Tribunal of Persons

A key concept we discussed in Session 10 is the notion that the Law always involves the tribunal of persons as per slide 4. As we discussed, 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 – the one asking the question, or “accuser”; then the one that is the subject or answerer, or “accused”; and finally the witness to the mental argument being sufficiently independent to conclude a rational thought. 

In fact this notion of the tribunal of persons is at the very heart of the modern legal system in the pseudo form of the “sacrament of penance” as a “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.

Page 5 – Law Always Involves Form, Cause and Action

And, as per slide 5 and as we have discussed repeatedly, 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 are needed 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 the formal complaint.

If a person possesses neither a right of action nor 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 we just discussed, the only way the system circumvents such logic, is through sheer ignorance, but we are usually undone by the argument that we have already confessed, by failing to properly lodge our exception or objection. In fact being misdirected and confused is one of the primary aims of the present system precisely so that the system can continue to operate the way it has for over 100 years.

But it does not make it right, or sustainable. For example, a county/council parking ranger has no right to issue a fine before first finding you in default; and no one can be found in default without an appeal and right to cure. It is only by our negligence in protesting to the county sheriff before any court date, that we “trick ourselves” into failing to properly except or object within the allotted time. So we let the allotted time to protest lapse, then we let the entire time making a contract lapse, so that when we finally come to court, we have, arguably, accepted that we have received a default, and opportunity to respond in a timely matter. This is one of the most frustrating and common themes of people facing the courts because of not responding, as they must.

Page 6 – What is Proceeding in Law? 

Slide 6 reminds us of the generalized steps and proceedings in a matter that may or may not go to trial, as many have found out – often the hard way.  Yet as we shall discuss tonight, far from the system being iron clad and permanent, there is remarkable fluidity in its professional ranks, especially when considering that the standing and nature of appearance can change from one hearing to another.  

That’s right!  You can make mistakes at the front end of a case, yet fix it up in the back end. This is particularly important for lodging Appearance. So what you learn tonight can still be applied even if you are facing a case already underway.

Page 7 – The 2 Trusts Created on Presumptions of Guilt

And as I demonstrated four weeks ago and earlier, as per slide 7, 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 demonstrates, 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 8 – The 3rd Trust Created on Contract Surety Bond

As per slide 8, the 3rd trust and the second sets of bonds created are the bail and performance bonds to “offset” the original fiduciary bond created by the judge.

So this is what we are facing and this is what they never divulge and this is why every court case uses probate law to argue that the charges are legitimate against an estate.

Part #2 – Police Arrest and Interview

Now as promised, before we get into issues surrounding Jurisdiction and Court Inquisition, I want to continue the theme from three weeks ago on major areas of concern that many people have about Police Arrest and Interview.

Page 10 – Police Obtained Testimony

Beginning with Slide 10, we spoke four weeks ago that the three most common methods in obtaining testimony by police officers are through visitation, detainment and formal interviews.

The three arguments for detainment being – computer alert or the production from the machine of some warrant or argument for arrest and detainment; or the presence of probable cause; or finally the use of fishing expeditions to find probable cause and charge people.

The three key goals of police in such processes are namely to obtain confessions, apart from any incriminating evidence; and to try and get contractual agreement in place for accepting any charges or liability; and finally in discrediting any future possible appeal or arguments of defense by exposing inconsistencies and falsities.

This diagram is the same whether a Police Officer pulls you over on the side of the highway, or knocks politely and asks to be let inside, or comes visiting with high powered weapons and body armor at four o’clock in the morning. It is either because of some computer alert, or probable cause or even fishing.

Yes, I kid you not that the use of tactical response groups to terrorize suspects in the hope they drop the ball on something, is an increasing tactic by many government agencies, especially now that so many departments have their own private tactical response teams to undertake midnight raids. It doesn’t always mean that they have a good reason; and in many cases, the officers conducting the raid know it. Often, they are gambling on you making terrible mistakes that they can then use against you. When it comes to people who subscribe to notions of freedom, especially in countries where people are still permitted to have guns in their home, these midnight raids have been spectacularly successful in tricking defendants into creating all kinds of charges against themselves, such as resisting arrest, threatening police, unlicensed firearms and so on, because of the raid and not the primary reason for the raid.

Page 11 – Police Authority of Action

As per slide 11, Police today claim two authorities of action to make arrests with force – the first and most common still is probable cause; and the second, and increasingly more prevalent, is “exigent circumstances” or the midnight SWAT raid.

The first reason remains Probable Cause and the argument that “A reasonable amount of suspicion exists, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong, to justify a prudent and cautious persons belief that certain facts are probably true.” As vague as this definition of Probable Cause is, for the most part, Probable Cause needs Police to act as Police; and for Criminals to behave as criminals.

The minute someone is not belligerent, or arrogant, or resistant, or acting or actually engaging in criminal activity, the police have a problem when applying excessive force. In almost all cases, the defendant ultimately is responsible in some way in making the matter manifestly worse. For example, the term “commercial bailiffs” is a fancy name for “repo men” and are not the most famous for being honest and following the rules – that is why they are “repo men” in the first place. Calling the police on the “repo men” or “bailiffs” on an eviction will probably cause the defendant to get arrested and even roughed up, because neither side like it when such action is challenged. If you have not been granted an injunction or a cease and desist order, or some other order is in place, then it is probably too late at that moment; and you will have to regroup down the road.

Now if someone is deeply immersed in much of the rubbish on the internet about resistance and open contempt for authority, even in writing dangerous letters to authority, then it is possible the Police will evoke the Exigent Circumstances argument when arresting you, namely the 4am wake up call by a door bashing, window smashing SWAT team. In such a case, it is absolutely fundamental for the police that you play your role as the stupid criminal incapable of discernment or reasonable behavior.

Why is this so important? Because, despite probable cause and exigent circumstances as claimed authority, police departments now are nothing more than commercial businesses like courts and banks. They have no authority because the warrant from the commercial court isn’t worth the paper it is written on. Instead, they are gambling on the suspect being tricked into an array of charges resulting from the raid that financially justifies their own expenses, rather than having to pay for the damage to the home.

The most popular charges resulting from a raid are resisting arrest, threatening police, unlicensed firearms, followed by making false statements and even impeding a police investigation. The police conducting such high force, high threat raids desperately need the suspect to enable these charges to be generated; otherwise the financial viability of such raids would be prohibitively expensive. So YOU are expected to do YOUR part in playing along as the crazy, mentally unstable rebellious citizen. As soon as you are calm, unarmed, co-operative even at 4 in the morning, they have a problem.

Page 12 – Seeing if you are under Arrest

So I have listed as slide 12, the same slide I discussed three weeks ago on the issue of Arrest. If you have been detained under probable cause or experienced a 4am in the morning wake-up call from a SWAT team, the first thing you will want to know is whether or not you are under arrest?

In fact you will know pretty immediately if the warrant that was executed was an arrest warrant as they will pretty much put you in handcuffs and take you off in some transport to be processed. Otherwise you are pretty much looking at a fishing expedition where they are hoping and praying the find something they can use to manufacture some charges or that you will do something stupid.

General Warrants are unlawful and immoral, yet most warrants for search issued by commercial courts that are not strictly arrest warrants are often now these insidious and morally repugnant notions that the police can pretty much use the search warrant to create whatever charges they like.  This is why the Patriot Act remains arguably the worst and most morally repugnant, unlawful, unconstitutional law ever conceived in the world.

In any event, if you find yourself still sitting in your home while police officers ransack your property, at some point an investigator will come over and start talking. That is when you can calmly ask as per the slide “Am I under arrest?”

Page 13 – Arrest

Slide 13 is a repeat from three weeks ago when we spoke about the interaction when it is made clear you are under arrest. I won’t go through the details of this slide again, except to say that the point of outlining such interaction is not to be a “smart-arse” or belligerent, but to make clear an arrest is not a consensual contract. You are not agreeing to waive your rights. Instead, the police officer has used his or her physical power of threat and violence to detain you and take you somewhere, typically a police station or in some cities now, one of the larger processing centers.

Page 14 – Police Station Processing

I have included slide 14 on Police Station Processing as well for consistency and continuity.  Again, the point of repeating this slide that we went through in detail three weeks ago is to remind ourselves that once again, being booked in at a police station or large processing center is not your agreement to a contract, particularly when they will not divulge and disclose all the facts. It is impossible.

Again, it doesn’t mean you behave as a “smart arse” or an angry person, but that you are calm and forthright and honest that nothing they demand from you is valid, until they themselves speak the truth and reveal all the facts. No one can reasonably expect you to promise a blank check in good faith, when the opposite party is being unreasonable and acting in bad faith and deception.

Page 15 – Police Station Processing Questions

For the same reason of continuity, I have included the kinds of questions you have the right to ask on slide 15. Now, the primary thing that I want to caution everyone with in such discussions is that these type of words are not some kind of “Harry Potter” spell that will suddenly and magically cause you to be released from prison if you parrot them out, regardless of the context.

I have seen various You Tube videos of people being stopped or detained and arrested where the suspect parrots off some memorized words, without any consideration for the context. It makes them look mad and like some kind of lunatic, because to parrot off words without knowing what it means, or without considering the context is the height of lunacy. So unless you have read and re-read and listened to and re-listened to this series on the Law Explained and truly comprehend this information, then simply memorizing pieces and mouthing them off like a parrot may actually cause more trouble. Be careful and be diligent then, please!

Page 16 – Police Interview Questions

This then brings us to slide 16 and new information I would like to discuss with you when facing a Police Interview, regardless of how you came to be in a Police Interview Room.

The assumption here is that the room set aside for the interview has some recording device to record the interview. Most, if not all Police Interview Rooms have such recording equipment and if the Police somehow want to speak with you “off camera” or “outside of radio range”, I strongly suggest you ask “will this interview be recorded” and even request that the interview be conducted in a room with recording equipment, so no false information or statements can be made up later.

But before you undertake any kind of police interview, there are two key questions you have the right to ask the Police and should ask the police. Let me quote what is on the slide:

Q.1.  Will you be conducting this interview according to the law and in good faith and honesty, without any deception?

 Yes. Continue to Q2.

 No. Then before I answer any questions, I request a pen and paper so I may prepare a statement.

Q. 2.  If so, before we start, will you first disclose to me all the claimed evidence you have and wish to discuss; and then provide me reasonable time to remember, so that I may answer honestly without any error?

 Yes. Continue and review the information

No. Then before I answer any questions, I request a pen and paper so I may prepare a statement.

Page 17 – Police Interview Statement

This then brings us to slide 17 and preparing a statement to be read onto the recording at the start of the interview. Do not be intimidated by the police officers that deny your ability to write a statement and to read it onto the recording.  It is your primary right and they know it. So be courteous, forthright and clear.  You have written a statement and you want to read it onto the record in light of their answers to your questions. Let me quote what is on the slide:

I <name>, make the following declaration as proof of my will In Propria Persona, as my natural person; and as principal of the person named “<name>”; and not as an agent or as a beneficial holder or pro se.

On <date>, I was (arrested/detained against my will) and brought to (name of police station) to be interviewed by police.

Before commencing, I asked the interviewing police if they would be conducting the interview according to the law and in good faith and honesty, without any deception. They answered (yes/no).

As a result, I asked the interviewing police if they would first disclose to me all the claimed evidence they have and wish to discuss; and then provide me reasonable time to remember, so that I could answer honestly without any error.

Because the interviewing police are not prepared at this time to disclose to me the substance of their claim and so allow me to recall accurately the events surrounding such claims, any further answers to questions at this time would be both unfair and prejudicial against me, as I am presently prevented by these actions from providing consistent and accurate answers.

Therefore, I shall be answering “no comment” to any and all further questions and I reject completely any claimed agreement, or contract, or submission by understanding to the police or courts or to any fees, or charges or being further detained at this time.

This statement is critically important because later on, if you are formally charged with a felony and go to court, your police interview is normally key evidence for the prosecution.  In this case, it will be key evidence for the defense, showing you were there to assist and not be evasive and in fact it was the detectives that were being evasive and deceptive.

When finished, ask for a copy of the recording, before it magically gets lost. You may need it for later.

Part #3 – Jurisdiction

Page 19 – Jurisdiction

Assuming the next stage in the legal journey is standing before a magistrate or judge of some description, it is time now to speak about the concept and nature of Jurisdiction as per slide 19.

There are always two parts to Jurisdiction being (1) The Authority of a Forum to Administer Justice; and (2) The Authority of a Jurist to sit and hear and interpret the Law in such a Forum. Unfortunately, most people only focus on the second form of Jurisdiction, being the claimed judge or magistrate; and miss the primary Authority of jurisdiction altogether, being the actual Authority of the Forum to Administer Justice in the first place.

The word Jurisdiction comes from the Latin iurisdictio meaning “authority to administer justice”. The Latin word itself is a combination of iuris as “rights; or law” and dicio meaning “to speak”. So Jurisdiction in its meaning should more actually be considered, the “right to speak of the law” more than simply raw power and authority.  Contrary, to the elaborate image of robes and sometimes wigs and gowns as well as props of flags and wood paneled rooms, the most powerful ingredient of Jurisdiction is knowledge! Knowledge and competence of the law; the kind of knowledge you can gain if only you have read and re-read and listened and re-listened to this series on the Law Explained; and the canons of law on the website as well as the many other blogs on

Yet for some reason, many people are not prepared to earn this power by learning and studying this knowledge. They want it given instantly, again like some scene of Harry Potter and other shows of magic and wizardry. Unfortunately, there is no easy path to knowledge except clearing your mind of all the rubbish that many people speak about concerning the law and then learning the essentials, starting with the Golden Rule of Law – that all are equal before the true law of the Divine Creator- and that no one is above Divine Law.

In any event, the Jurisdiction being the Authority of Forum to Administer Justice can be broken down further into three components:

(a) Instrument of Authority = Constitution or Ecclesiastical/Royal Charter or Warrant or Certificate (of Incorporation)

(b) Operation of Authority = Original Roll containing name of person (not added later); or Consent (also related to Joinder)

(c) Assurance of Authority = Record of Public Liability and Professional Indemnity of Jurists.

Similarly, the Jurisdiction that is the Authority of a Judge or Magistrate as Jurist to interpret the Law can also be broken down into three essential components:

(a) Instrument of Authority = Warrant or Letter of Appointment

(b) Operation of Authority = Record of Statutory Oath as Fiduciary 

(c) Assurance of Authority = Record of Bond

Page 20 – What are some types of Forum Jurisdiction

Because there are many terms thrown around concerning Jurisdiction, let me now give a brief outline of the most common types of descriptions of the Jurisdiction of the Forum as shown on slide 20:

Territorial Jurisdiction = The district or geographic limits of authority of the Forum, usually as expressed within the constituting document of its authority (i.e. constitution, charter, etc);

Personal Jurisdiction = The power of a Forum over the parties in a matter before it, by authority of Original Roll (not added later); or Consent or both. An absence of proper objection is presumed as consent;

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction = The limits of exclusive or concurrent authority to administer certain subject matter of law (i.e. contracts, probate, admiralty, equity, tort, criminal, etc);

Original Jurisdiction = Also known as “first instance”, is whether a matter can be initiated first in a particular Forum, or whether it can only be heard after it has been adjudicated elsewhere (hence “Appellate Jurisdiction”);

Foreign Jurisdiction = Any jurisdiction that is foreign to the Forum;

Limited Jurisdiction = When the Forum is constrained by its constituting document as to the amount or value of property in dispute; or any other limit by virtue of Territorial, Personal, Subject-Matter, Original or Foreign.  A Forum without restriction is a Court of General Jurisdiction. 

Page 21 – Forum Jurisdiction – What is an Original Roll?

Now a particular element of Jurisdiction concerning the Forum that I want to discuss briefly with you, is the concept of what is an Original Roll concerning jurisdiction?

On slide 21, I define an Original Roll as “a Roll of Persons under the control and authority (jurisdiction) of the Forum enabling it to claim coercive powers to attend a particular matter or controversy”. 

To put it another way, the concept of an “Original Roll” is the claim or right of a court to use a name similar to yours, followed by sending you documents such as a summons, or to issue arrest warrants for arrest you; and thus force you to attend some court hearing. Given such scenarios, it is a pretty important concept to comprehend.

In the past, the courts did not really need your consent to issue arrest warrants or send summons demanding that you attend. That is because the court was a literal extension of the Body Corporate of the Lord of Manor or the Head of the Estate; and by Rights, tenants on the Manor Roll were as a matter of fact also on the court roll – hence their status as a tenant gave the court the right to compel them to appear on any matter of controversy.

This concept later evolved to the notion of the poor rolls and the indentured poor, particularly those in servitude as slaves receiving a pittance in compensation for their labor. The benefit of not being murdered by the rich was that the poor living in servitude as slaves could be compelled to attend any matter of controversy that the rich felt was important – such as stealing a loaf of bread, or failing to pay enough rent to their master, or whatever other charges could be invented.

Later, this continued with the beginning of the concept of a “middle class” – paupers and peasants granted a few more privileges in exchange for keeping the rest of the slaves in perpetual servitude. Thus was born the electoral roll with a large number of people required to pay poor law rates, in the form of the tax rolls.

By the way, the word Attend and Attendance that you see normally on summons of traffic citation tickets originates from the Latin attendere/attend meaning, “I submit to (being a slave); I serve (as a slave); I obey (as a slave); I come to (as a slave)”. The word is not hidden in legal dictionaries. It is admitted, sometimes blatantly – that any summons or court notice you receive with the word Attend or Attendance is a written acknowledgment from your political elite that you have no rights and that contrary to anything you think about a constitution – you are in practice nothing more than a slave to them.

However, the system has a problem. Because in creating a corporate overlay, particularly with courts being corporations themselves, they no longer have any statutory right to claim such Original Rolls, even if a Statutory Agency appoints them their agent or arbitrator to resolve the matter, all parties must agree by consent.

Yet this is not how modern corporate courts are operating. Instead their computer systems are linked to original rolls, in direct breach of the rights of data and dozens of laws; and such courts create warrants and summons using language claiming absolute jurisdiction, when they have nothing of the sort; and then seek to trick defendants into granting consent. All these actions are a fraud; and in a strict sense should have rendered virtually every matter in the past seventy years across most Western nations null and void. The fact that neither the higher courts feel they have anything to worry about with such fraud, nor the politicians, nor the courts is an indication of just how broken justice is in most places.

Page 22 – Forum Jurisdiction – What is Joinder?

Before we have a look at some of the arguments that put us into the jurisdiction of most western courts by our own accidents or by being tricked, I want to discuss for a moment another key point of jurisdiction in the form of Joinder on slide 22.

Joinder is a word full of mystery and intrigue in their system, yet is an essential concept to comprehend. As the word suggests, the concept of “Joinder” is joining parts together – in the case of a controversy, the various parts of the person, such as the example of J. Smith in earlier slides during this session. It also means joining records from different rolls together by consent, and thus overcoming the nexus of how a corporate court can still claim the power to charge the higher estate to recover costs. 

There are primarily two critical forms of Joinder – the one at the beginning being the Joinder of parties at the very beginning of the case, that firmly establishes the claimed jurisdiction of the court; and the Joinder at Issue that reinforces jurisdiction and locks in the judge or magistrate to the matter.

Part #4 – Appearance

Now that we have covered some of the most key concepts of Jurisdiction, I want to speak about the notion and importance of Appearance, both in challenging assumptions of Jurisdiction as well as how to ensure you have the best possible position to defend yourself.

Page 24 – What is Appearance?

There are many definitions floating around about appearance and almost all of them trick you into thinking of one part only, while ignoring the second part of the meaning.

Have a look at slide 24. You see there are two critical parts to Appearance, not just one.  Appearance is (1) The Physical Presence; and (2) Formal Capacity & Character of Defendant coming to a valid forum of law to resolve a Legal Argument. Most people get point (1), but completely miss point (2). Let us have a brief look in more detail.

(1) Appearance as Physical Presence means the coming to court as a party to a suit. A Legal Argument needs a minimum of 3 parties – the Accuser, the Accused and the Witness to proceed, so this first meaning implies those three parts are present within a Forum of law to proceed.

(2) Appearance as formal Capacity & Character means a Defendant may appear by agent (solicitor/attorney); or by counsel (advocate/barrister/attorney); or without representation. Furthermore, a party as Defendant may choose to contest the accusation or not contest the accusation. Unless a formal written appearance is provided on the day, the assumption by the court is that a defendant agrees to the accusations – no matter what is subsequently said in court.

This formal written memorandum of Appearance on the Day is what most people fail to do. Moreover, even if people know about the importance of providing a written form on the day, once again there is so much deliberate white noise and confusion about the form, causing many people to submit false or ridiculous forms to the court that are openly rejected, causing even more damage to their position. 

Now, as to the rule: All Appearance is presumed “General Appearance” unless stated at the beginning of the matter as a challenge of Jurisdiction. If this happens, then the Appearance is said to be by “Special Appearance”. General Appearance is unqualified and unrestricted submission to the court. I will speak about this key difference in a moment.

Page 25 – Appearance (1) Physical Presence of Parties

Now, whenever I have spoken in this series on the “Law Explained” about Legal Terms and in particular about the many “tricks and traps” of the present legal system, I have also tried to paint a visual picture to make sense of the “why”?  Hopefully that the idea will make sense in its context and you will be able to not only remember it, but know how to properly apply it.  This is the case now with slide 25 and the concept of Appearance of the Parties to a matter.

Remember how I keep using the same colors of figures of persons on these slides over and over again, so that red is the grantor of the right, yellow is the trustee, blue is the agent and purple/pink is the beneficial holder – we see that in the case of any legal argument, we need a minimum of 3 parties – the Accuser, the Accused and the Witness to proceed.  In the case of a legal framework that hides the sacrament of penance and the concept of the tribunal of penance in plain sight, it means we need the three parts of “Mr Smith” in the court room at the same time, namely 1st person, 2nd person and 3rd person to make it work.

Now this elaborate “behind the scenes” masquerade starts to make sense when you consider that courts not only overlay trust law, but they overlay probate and estate law within almost every case, especially criminal cases. Why? Because it is the only way they can justify charging fees in criminal cases, when 200 years ago, such an act would have caused the judge or magistrate to have been thrown into prison for corruption.

It also visually reinforces the notion of the “joinder” of parties at the start of the case with the three parts, the judge pretending to be Mr Smith In Propria Persona, the prosecutor pretending to be Mr Smith, sui agens or sui juris and then you or your representative as Mr Smith the Beneficial Holder and the Res or property in question of the suit.

Page 26 – Appearance (2) Capacity & Character of Defendant

Similarly, in slide 26, I try to make the precarious nature of a Defendant in a Legal Matter clear with the two diagrams I have shown to you in two previous sessions on this series on “The Law Explained” and the difference between a Contentious or Non-Contentious Legal Argument.

In a Non Contentious Legal Argument, the Defendant admits the existence of a controversy in good conscience; and therefore instantly becomes the highest of all the parties, as the grantor of the matter via a true tribunal of the court of conscience.  However, this does not mean that the Defendant accepts claims that are not true. It is a fine line, with unfortunately, very few people having the character or capacity to stand in such a manner; as it requires a man or a woman to stand in the shoes of Christ – knowing the truths I have shown you in this series, that are replicated in the words of Jesus Christ within the New Testament.

For most of us, the only position we are capable of answering in a Legal Argument is Contention, where we reject and choose to fight against the system of pirates and thieves. Yet, as you can see by the diagram, this logically and legally places the lowest form of person as the accused as the subject of the matter, or the res. So if we do not come to court, we inevitably will be arrested. But if we do come to court and think we can defend ourselves, the ONLY POSITION THAT WE CAN EVER HOLD IS PRO SE.

I know I keep saying this, but I keep saying the only position you can hold as you within their court is Pro Se, because it is true. Even the courts’ own computer systems have automated this fact. Either you are represented by an Attorney-In-Fact as an Agent, or by a more senior legal advocate or you are viewed only as Pro Se.

There is an answer, but you need to clear your mind of all the false claims, false statements and false remedies that so many people have flooded onto the internet in order to move forward.

Page 27 – Appearance (2) Form (Memorandum)

The first answer is making sure that from now on, whenever you are forced to go to court you will make absolutely certain that you lodge a Memorandum of Appearance on the day of the appearance.

Take a look at slide 27. Normally you should take 2 copies (one stamped for your files) delivered to Court (Clerks) Office at very start of the Day of Appearance – or at worst – handed to clerk within the courtroom prior to matter being called in Court.

Many courts have a formal form ID and will not accept an Appearance Memorandum unless it has the correct number and format that is already accepted by the court.

As to key information on the memorandum, every standard form of appearance will have the word APPEARANCE at the top; or in those rare occasions that someone is competent to argue a challenge to jurisdiction the words SPECIAL APPEARANCE, followed by the Court Details and Title of Proceedings. The memorandum of appearance then normally will show the Representation and Surety of Defendant Details. Note: if you plan to contest accusations without representation you CANNOT BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN PRO SE (IN REM) i.e. “a thing” – no matter how much you argue. The memorandum needs to state clearly that the accused appears, including the signature of the one making the appearance as proof.

Now, this brings me to a key point of question that many people have in the argument – What happens when I am competent and am capable of defending myself? Is there any way around this nexus of Pro Se? The answer is absolutely yes. Ucadia proves that if you have overcome the increasingly desperate chatter to stop people from redeeming their membership and getting their Live Borne Record, that your True Person in Ucadia is superior to any other possible person in the Western system, including all the fake claims by fake remedy gurus.

This is a completely separate person to your Roman Person. So absolutely you are able to represent your Roman person as an Attorney-In-Fact or as a Legal Advocate, so long as you are able to give proper notice with the proper paperwork ahead of time. So let us have a look at the three types of Appearances so that we can make more sense of this.

Page 28 – What are types of Appearance?

On page 28, I list the three types of Appearance you can have in terms of Capacity and Character. I have already mentioned the limitations and dangers of Appearance by Self, so I do not want to spend any more time on this option. Instead, I want to cover briefly the notion of either Appearance by Agent such as by an Attorney-In-Fact; or Appearance by Advocate in more serious matters.

As I mentioned a few moments ago, the existence of your Ucadia Membership and Ucadia True Person through your Live Borne Record is proof that the “physical-you” can represent more than one person. You do this already. So do not feel awkward or uncomfortable with the notion, that as the Attorney-In-Fact, that You may end up representing You, while having a very similar name to You; and may even look exactly like You.

The reason courts are able to deny certain appointments of Attorneys-In-Fact as Agents is multiple, but in virtually every case, is procedural. People fail to lodge proper Appearance; and such alleged Attorneys-In-fact, fail to lodge their Certificate of Appointment; and additionally, fail to present any form of bond or surety before the day of appearance. All these points are procedural and really have nothing to do with the built-in advantage of card-carrying members of the Private Bar Guilds. In fact all “barriers” can be argued, are really “barriers” of our competence, more than deliberate bias of a closed shop actually enforcing prejudicial employment practices that are in breach of numerous international treaties and most laws in most Western nations.

The same applies to representation by an Advocate-of-Law. It is merely that the standards of competence are that much higher than was previously known. Unfortunately, if your head is full of much of the rubbish on the internet about law, then you may think you are capable of lodging papers as an advocate, but you will be found wanting within their scales of “justice”. 

In many jurisdictions, not only does the court need time before the appearance date to be notified of a proposed Advocate, but they also need time whether to test the competence of the Advocate. This is in essence the nature of “passing the bar” – to see that one who may represent defendants in serious matters will, not through their own ignorance or lack of exemplary behavior, create further injury or controversy. 

A McKenzie friend is not the same. A McKenzie friend may not speak in a court as an advocate and may only accompany the defendant and provide quiet advice, as they do not have the powers of an agent. Similarly an Amicus Curiae is not a counsel or an advocate, but equivalent to a “McKenzie friend of the court”. Amicus Curiae exist to assist a court in difficult or sometimes technical cases and not necessarily for the benefit of any one party.

Page 29– What is General and Special Appearance?

Now before we wrap up this extraordinary Session on the Law Explained, I will provide some more detail and clarity between the notion of General and Special Appearance on slide 29.

As you can see by the slide, the ideas of Conditional Appearance and even Limited Appearance are merely variations of General Appearance, despite what some people may claim. Whereas Special Appearance is the restricted and qualified submission to the court for the sole purpose of hearing a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the court to rule on the first matter. Now remember what I just said? Jurisdiction of the court, not the jurisdiction of the judge or magistrate. If Your arguments are about the judge or magistrate, then You are NOT in court by Special Appearance.

What then might be some valid arguments concerning Special Appearance? Well, I have not listed any specific arguments on any specific slide, as this is something that I feel we need to discuss in more detail. However I can indicate some notions that are reasonable questions. PLEASE do not consider this a cut and paste laundry list as You will AUTOMATICALLY FAIL if you act so stupidly:

Non-Constitutional – If you have written evidence of a Court operating as a business and a corporation and therefore not the “de jure” court as stated in a constitution, then you may object via special appearance on the basis that the court has no constitutional basis to hear matters concerning your person, without your consent.

Non-Impartial- If you have evidence (see previous sessions on the Law Explained and the Red Book and Blue Book of judges) that the Court is operating as a contractor for other quasi-government agencies and that this is the claimed basis of jurisdiction over name – via existing contract with agency – then you may object via special appearance on the basis that the court cannot possibly be an impartial arbitrator as it has been appointed by one party; and has failed to divulge that interest in pursuing the matter, indicating not only bias but deceptive conduct; and

Non-Legitimate – If you have evidence (this is a very serious allegation so be very careful) that trusts have been formed on fraudulent assumptions; and your name has been used without your consent; and the court has made presumptions of authority (i.e. the word attend) it does not have; and the court has failed to divulge vested interests with the accuser (hired to do a job); and you do not consent to this behavior, then you may challenge via special appearance that it is not a legitimate forum of law to hear such matters.

The only viable solution for restoring Justice and True Rule of Law is Ucadia

The only viable solution for restoring Justice and True Rule of Law is Ucadia. I know that some people the may find these statements confronting. However, if you have even the slightest doubt, I urge you to re-listen to the complete series on the law explained, to read the complete canons of law and codes of law of Ucadia and read what is already in place such as Article 6 of the constitutional charter of the Americas Union and all the Ucadia Unions.

There is no other model. There is none. Only a few fakes and fake claims – many that owe their existence to stealing and robbing information, like typical pirates, from Ucadia in the first place. That is why, those few of you, who have shown the courage and fortitude to donate and contribute to help Ucadia continue are such heroes. Because you know this is making a difference – while so many people, who claim to want to help the people of planet earth, are frantically busy trying to keep it the same or make it worse, for whatever reasons they may have.

So to all of you who continue to read, to listen, to support and donate to, and assist Ucadia – Thank You.

Until we speak in the next few weeks, please be safe and well.