Saturday, February 05, 2011

Letter from a brave man in court

Hello Readers (said in a pretentious manner)

I just received a fascinating message form a youtube viewer and I wanted to put it out there.

Many of you will have heard about the 'freeman' or sovereignty movement around the world. I kn ew about it before my court case but didn't feel I knew enough and understood enough to be able to withstand the onslaught of the (il)legal system. who aint just going to let a few clever guys ruin their game without a fight.

I think that anyone who is brave enough to take the system on I am sure those who have would agree that you must first and foremost completely know and understand your stuff. The way to test it in my experience si to go to courts as often as you can and test it out on lawyers and barristers and even clercs by just catching them here and there, tell them that you are going to court for something or that a friend is and that you are going to say this and that. You will then experience a taste of what it will be like in court. Finally, if you want to try it our perhaps its best to do it on something like council tax for which the punishment is simply paying the bill ! Its a good way of practicing

Anyway, here is the letter he sent which you can also use. I would be fascinated to hear form any barristers or lawyers who read this. I suspect I know what they will say.

From Rick...

In Georgina Ontario Canada, I was charged with driving without a Valid drivers license, in-valid plates, un-registared vehicle, and "Obstruction of Police" (a criminal charge with a max. 2 year sentence attached to it) I was arrested violently for protesting the removal of my personal property by pointing a camera at these arresting officers and forced to stay in a cold jail cell over-night and into the next day. My prescription sunglasses were stepped on and destroyed as were some other personal affects and my camera damaged. No restitution has been offered by the York Regional Police to date and am not expecting it anytime soon. I had been awaiting the opportunity to challenge this fraudulent de-facto court system and criminal Police organization for 3 years and decided to do just that by defending myself and did. Here is the outcome.

On Oct 19th, while in the court room, and after not rising for "her worship" and submitting to their (the courts) jurisdiction that way, the court clerk yelled at me and called for the police. I calmly walked out of the court and sat just outside on a bench, watching as the police came swarming. 10 officers all together I believe is what there were in total. Once they finally exhausted all of their top notch investigative skills and found that I was the guy who didn't "Rise" for "her worship", ( it was comical watching them looking up and down the halls for me) they attempted to intimidate me with threats of arrest to which I replied with " if you touch me, you will be charged with assault under the common law, I have not consented to your jurisdiction" They didn't touch me but continued their techniques of intimidation which continued to fail. When the older Police officer, senior member I guess, came to me and informed me that I would be going back into the court room and would rise when my name was called, I replied with " are you trying to force me to commit perjury?" He replied with "absolutely not" Changing his method of technique, he stated that I would "behave myself" as well as a bunch of other commands, ending his tirade with "do you understand" to which I replied with "No I do not understand" he then proceeded to go through it all again asking at the end again if I " understood?" I again replied with " No, I do not stand under your jurisdiction" - game over.
They called the NAME of the trust again while I was being detained and threatened by the policy enforcers. When the NAME didn't appear in the court room, the judge issued a bench warrant for the arrest of the NAME. When the policy enforcers asked me my name, I replied with " I go by Dad, son, bro, and Rick among others" and handed the birth certificate to them stating that " this is what you are looking for" and that they had "No claim of jurisdiction over me the human being"

After all of that, I went back into the court to remain in honor and settle the issue with the TRUST/ the NAME. They had me surrounded by 7 policy enforcers in yet another attempt to intimidate me into submission to their jurisdiction. I should also add that they had by now cleared the courtroom and had my guests, and members of the public, leave the court room. I was left alone to deal with this without the benefit of witnesses. It failed and they remanded the case to another courtroom with another judge. Meanwhile, keeping in mind the whole time, the crown council, a very confident and cocky women for the previous cases, was quite visibly nervous in dealing with me and was fumbling over her words, even referring to the birth cert that I offered into the court, as a "drivers license" from the province of New Brunswick. I corrected her promptly and she stood corrected in front of the court. This woman would not face me directly in either courtroom on either day.

My case was then remanded to another court and another day as the older lady judge didn't know how or want to deal with me. My case was set for Nov 10th 2010. When the NAME was called, I came into the court room and stood just behind the bar. When told to approach, I stated " I am fine here, I choose not to cross the bar" They said they needed me to because they "could not hear me" I replied with " That's ok, I can speak up, I have a loud voice" That was that. I was then asked if I the NAME (first and last names) and I replied with, " I am the Agent for the capitalized name and I claim common law jurisdiction" like I had done during the previous court appearance on Oct 19th. They didn't want to hear that and asked me a couple more times if I was the NAME (first and last names) and I again repeated " I am the Agent for the capitalized name and I claim common law jurisdiction" The judge reacted as if he was annoyed and asked me to sit down and he would deal with me later. I didn't sit down and gathered my stuff up and went back outside the court room and sat down on a bench awaiting the NAME to be called once again. I short while later, we see the older police constable that was giving me such a hard time, and by the way, he was taking down notes about me, including what I was wearing and staring at me while doing it before the appearance in court. He along with a few others made a bee-line for a small office outside the court. I watched them as I sat outside the court go into that room and after about 5 mins, they came out of that room, went back into court and very soon after that The NAME was called again.

When it was all said and done, the NAME was called ( I was seated once again outside on a bench) and they attempted one last time to trick me into accepting the TRUST as me, the flesh and blood human being and failed. The legal aid attorney came to me and asked if was going to be hiring a lawyer, I replied with " No..?" She then asked "will you be applying for legal aid?" ( Begging for legal aid ) and I again said " No..?" That was it, they gave up and the floor was then handed over to the "other" crown council, one who could deal with what had to be done, where he went on to explain to the court ( or rather, save face) that although the charges were legitimate, they felt that the case should have been held in a lower community court and that even though the criminal charge of " Obstruction of Police" was a valid charge, after their looking into of the case, they were "withdrawing the charges" Judge says to me, the flesh and blood human being "you are free to go" to which I replied " while looking at the people seated next to me " of course I am..thank you"

It is important to note that I did win and that weren't going to admit to the entire court room of seated pawns that I was right and they were playing a game that I had a full knowledge of and this is why they addressed the court the way they did, by stating "that they felt the charges were legit" etc..

It so important for people to hold their ground. I was so very nervous before going in and leading up to the day, but once I was in the court room and began standing my ground, a calm came over me, both times. I encourage everyone reading this to do your homework, it isn't hard to do. I am not an academic, I am a musician, but have a tenacity and a spirit that will never let me down and never has. I work hard at it and you can to. If people learn and spread this knowledge everywhere to all they come into contact with, you will be doing more for your future and the future of your children than any and every soldier did in any war, for this is what will bring about freedom and peace for all men on earth.

I wish I could help everybody out there in need and by writing up this transcript of what went down and how I handled it, I hope to do just that. Help.
Do your homework but keep my transcript close at hand. Refer to it. When you have your own success, please do the same. My heart goes out to those who have been accosted and treated awful by this heartless system. I understand your pain and your fear of it. Use your fear and find strength in my words to take on this battle. If you can't, then don't and don't worry about it. There will be other ways to contribute to this battle for human dignity.



kelseydawn said...

thanks for sharing. i'm slowing working on my knowledge and confidence in this area as well.

and there are a lot of great resources on the internet like

playonwords55 said...

Thank you Rick for sharing this and thank you Danny for posting. I wish that one day there are courses offered in every city where people can learn to defend themselves from this pervasive tyranny. Our world is turning more and more insane by the day and it is an attack on everything that it means to be human. Some can see it clearly and others never will...this is what i find most disturbing. They only get away with it because the majority are blind, disempowered and want to be controlled and dehumanized. Tragic.

johneye said...

Awesome, Rick. This note comes to you from the bloke in the youtube vid ‘milford nh state v ingress’ .
I wish to make clear that at the time that was recorded, I did not truly understand the issue revolving around the NAME…hopefully I do, now. Just to clarify; when the judge returned, if I had “argued”, I would be liable to be held in contempt, as that would be "Admiralty" jurisdiction. If I understand right.
thanks again, johneye

TheWarlessWarrior said...

I Hope the links in this post of my blog can help other people to research their rights and have the confidence to fight their own corner

Justin Megawarne said...

Hi, Danny. Big fan of yours here: I’m the Asian guy with the long curly hair who occassionally yells supporting commentary on Oxford Street. Took me ages to find out who you were. :-)

Unfortunately, the FMOTL movement seems to be founded on nonsense. There is a wealth of debunking material online, and I have also spoken to multiple solicitors about it. If one is to behave in a thinking manner, one must avoid getting sucked into theories that are highly attractive in their consequences, but nevertheless wrong. Our actions and words affect those around us, and therefore it behooves us to be responsible and exercise as much rigour as we can afford to expend.

Common law does not invalidate Acts of Parliament, according to the aforementioned solicitors. One awful example of this is the Terrorist Act invalidating the habeas corpus clause of the Magna Carta. Yes, it completely sucks and is a debasement of one of our fundamental and most ancient freedoms, but it’s the legal reality of the matter.

I realize that the whole freeman philosophy sounds very attractive and self-empowering, but it is an artifice based on arguments that are shockingly specious at the best of times; those hinging on capitalization of writing, the supposed etymology of certain words, and an unsubstantiated mythical foundation of maritime law with no basis in statute, act or legal precedent.

Out of pure intellectual interest, I did my own research and think that the closest you can get to avoiding conviction due to an Act of Parliament is jury nullification. This is when the jury is convinced that a law is so unjustly applied that they would rather acquit you even if you are “technically” guilty. However, this is on a case-by-case basis and does not automatically invalidate an act, according to my solicitor. Furthermore, most judges specifically instruct the jury to focus on “facts” and let the judge themselves deal with matters of law. If your barrister tries to convince the jury to nullify, he’ll probably be found in contempt of court, or at least severely reprimanded by the judge.

Please do not rely on this stuff to defend your case, however superficially attractive it may sound. In your particular battle, ironically, the ECHR is brought into force in this country by an Act of Parliament, the Human Rights Act — so you are already on a much better route for resolving your problems.

It is an unfortunate truism that the people with the most force are effectively the true executors of law, and therefore the ultimate definers of the same. That happens to be the government and its thugs in most cases, with rules either explicitly defined by Parliament in acts, or by precedent in the gaps.

The best we can hope for is that they pretend to operate like a liberal democracy, listen to their voters, enact laws in accordance with various ethical and democratic principles, and honour the judicial mechanisms of dispute resolution. If they fail in that, we citizens have to be prepared to physically resist tyranny and risk whatever comes: not try to combat it with bizarre pseudolegal masturbation.

A dire sentence, I know. However, you’re already trying to inspire people to wake up, be strong and be compassionate. This is definitely the right path. But we should inspire them to be mindful and rigorous too, lest we fall into a quagmire of superstition and anti-intellectualism, and we start to spread misinformation that causes a lot of harm.