Hi all. I have been researching the fraud that the government has committed against us by making us and our parents believe it was against the law not to register the birth of our children, then using that birth certificate to deceive us into thinking that we had to obey their laws. It blows my mind to realise that we never gave consent to be part of this government, therefore their laws and statutes don't apply to us.
Go a step deeper and then realise their laws never did apply to us because their laws can only apply to corporations and that they used the name that our parents gave us to create a fictitious corporation that has our name (and that we think is us) to enforce their laws upon us. Their laws can not be applied to a flesh and blood men and women, our downfall is that when the government corresponds to the fictitious corporation using our name all in Capital Letters, we think they are talking to our flesh and blood self and take responsibility for the fictitional corporation which was their whole plan.
My problem is now that I know This, what are the steps to not accepting joinder in court. My brother is going to court for driving while disqualified on Tuesday. I know we need to get an affidavit signed and file it with the court. I am confused as to whether after we file the affidavit as to what the next step is. Does he still go to court to present his case to the judge or does that act in itself give them jurisdiction? And if he does still go to court, does he stay in the gallery or present his case from the dock?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Hello to all. This is my first visit to this group (I am using my wife’s FB account I don’t have one.) after reading through a few post and finding them to be very informative.
I have some questions that I asked my lawyer a couple of years ago but didn’t receive a reply. I am still interested in what the answers would be, even though my case is ended. Any help would be greatly appreciated, please excuse my spelling and grammar it’s not my strong point, spell check can’t even work out what I trying to spell a lot of the time.
If you need more information from me about my case to answer the questions I will do my best to give it. My case was under criminal law but I am interested in any areas of law that my questions are applicable to.
Could you please read the following excerpts and answer any question, if able. Thank you in advance.
Diminutio. Lat. In civil law. Diminution; a taking away; loss or depravation.
Capitis Diminutio Minima (meaning a minimum loss of status through the use of capitalisation, e.g. John Doe) – The lowest or least comprehensive degree of loss of status. This occurred where a man’s family relations alone were changed. It happened upon the arrogation [pride] of a person who had been his own master, (sui juris,) [of his own right, not under any legal disability] or upon the emancipation of one who had been under the patria potestas. [Parental authority] It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered.
Capitis Diminutio MEDIA (meaning a medium loss of status through the use of capitalisation, e.g. John DOE) – A lesser or medium loss of status. This occurred where a man loses his rights of citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights.
CAPITIS DIMINUTIO MAXIMA (meaning a maximum loss of status through the use of capitalisation, e.g. JOHN DOE or DOE JOHN) – The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man’s condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave.
There are four different levels of capitalisation used in names of ‘persons’:
• john doe (shane davies) We start with the human-being
• John Doe (Shane Davies) Capitis Diminutio Minima. This is the natural-person.
• John DOE (Shane DAVIES) Capitis Diminutio MEDIA. This is the quasi natural/artificial person
• JOHN DOE (SHANE DAVIES) CAPITIS DIMINUTIO MAXIMA. This is the corporation / artificial-person
Here is a summary of the rights and freedoms of the above ‘persons’:
• The human-being has all the unalienable rights and freedoms as provided by God and protected by common law.
• The Natural-Person has the rights and freedoms as provided by man with the Magna Charta, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Bill of Rights. All these documents state is the obvious –that we are all free and equal.
• The Quasi-Natural/ARTIFICIAL-PERSON has lost some rights, but not all rights. At this time it is not evident how to quantify which rights have been lost.
• The CORPORATION/ ARTIFICIAL-PERSON has benefits and privileges as provided by the creator of the Corporation (government).
• The prosecutor must create legal joinder between us (the human being) and our artificial persons. There are a variety of ways that individuals have dealt with standing in court and dealing with this subtle deception. Some refuse to accept joinder, some accept it and assume the position of Executor of the Trust (the strawman), some simply take ownership of the strawman and proceed from there.
• The New Zealand courts have confirmed on public record that they are courts for the purpose of administering New Zealand Statue Law under the District Court Act 1947, and have stated that they are not there to determine human rights.
• These are human rights including the right to choose the jurisdiction that one wishes to stand in, and other inalienable rights repeatedly documented throughout history beginning with the Charter of Liberties and the Magna Carta at the beginning of last millennium, carrying through to our own Bill of Rights in 1990.
Here is a legal Maxim: Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius – Definition: The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another.
Question: can you tell me what definition of person I am been charged under? The answer to this question I think will impact my next question?
Right to justice
(1) Every person has the right to the observance of the princi¬ples of natural justice by any tribunal or other public author¬ity which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person’s rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law.
(2) Every person whose rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law have been affected by a determination of any tribunal or other public authority has the right to apply, in accordance with law, for judicial review of that determination.
Question: is the chargers (case) against me been brought against me under statute law, common law or another law?
I hope my question make sence I am just trying to get my head around this. I am trying to understand definitions and interpretations of legalese which is of course very hard when the definition of Legalese is as follows: The technical talk of the legal profession, the argot of lawyers; Wording that resembles how a lawyer writes, especially such that is confusing to the layperson. Also to interpret Statutes you must be aware of the principles of interpretation. A lot of words are re-defined in statutes so they may have a meaning different from their ordinary Legalese meaning. The layperson or common man cannot read this language. It is for the sole purpose of confusing and hence controlling
Question: how can the law say ignorance of the law is no excuse? When the law is purposely mad to be complicated