Man Chases Judge from Courtroom

[WildBill]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3uCaTQO-54

This better explains it..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk2UFrg0vMI

[WhoCares1000]

I do not see this working in the states. First off, the bailiffs would have be more forceful in removing the person and 2nd, the judge would have simply declared the person a no-show and have moved on. If the person would have tried to continue, he would have had them arrested for contempt of court.

[WildBill]

I do not see this working in the states. First off, the bailiffs would have be more forceful in removing the person and 2nd, the judge would have simply declared the person a no-show and have moved on. If the person would have tried to continue, he would have had them arrested for contempt of court.

It has worked already IN the states.

A gentleman in NC contested the courts on a civil matter, he won.

Video is on Youtube. Here it is, you want proof? You got proof.

You have to KNOW your rights, and stand your ground.

The judge has no authority unless you give him authority, to practice Maritime Commerce Law from the Bench, which is bogus. Subject Matter Jurisidiction.

Stop with the negativity, its all over this board, Im not sure if its shills or those that are ignorant of rights and law...

[WildBill]

UCC Law (Uniform Commercial code) vs Civil Law.

Why are all of your bills, Drivers license and Birth certificate in Capital letters?

Edited December 4, 2010 by WildBill

[WildBill]

Another case in Canada.

Judge fails to prove Jurisdiction

No Summary Judgment for Profit.

Bench = Bank in Latin

[lheart]

Serious question. Have you ever used any of your theories yourself in a court of law?

[GrumpyGus]

Serious question. Have you ever used any of your theories yourself in a court of law?

I wouldn't recommend it.

[BV80]

Another case in Canada.

Judge fails to prove Jurisdiction

Canadian law?

[WhoCares1000]

OK, my rebuttle:

1) If you listen to the report, you will realize the defendants procedural issues were all thrown out. The reason the defendant probably won is that the officer who wrote out the citation did not show up for whatever reason (On duty elsewhere, on vacation, does not care, etc). Had the officer shown up, he probably would have lost.

Besides, if the guy wants to practice what be believes, then rent a plane and take it up in the air without any regulation and see what happens.

2) The UCC videos are another form of paranoia from someone who obviously has a beef with the catholic church (who has been recording births since the 1500s BTW). Besides, learn the UCC and then use it to your advantage because the banks/corporations/etc have to abide by the same rules. There are many traps in the UCC for both sides

3) Canadian law is totally different from US Law. Canada actually follows closer to English Common than the US because their split did not occur until 1982 whereas the US split occurred in 1776.

Show me a video where the case was dismissed based on the procedural grounds and not because "the plaintiff did not have any evidence" and then I will believe you. Otherwise, this is just another stupid trick. To all who are reading this, stick with the tried and true pleadings rather than try to become someone who creates caselaw. It is difficult for the lawyers and if you lose, you lose big.

[WildBill]

I wouldn't recommend it.

I wouldnt either, unless youre well informed of the laws of the kangaroo court, subject matter jurisdiction and your own rights..

[WildBill]

OK, my rebuttle:

1) If you listen to the report, you will realize the defendants procedural issues were all thrown out. The reason the defendant probably won is that the officer who wrote out the citation did not show up for whatever reason (On duty elsewhere, on vacation, does not care, etc). Had the officer shown up, he probably would have lost.

Besides, if the guy wants to practice what be believes, then rent a plane and take it up in the air without any regulation and see what happens.

2) The UCC videos are another form of paranoia from someone who obviously has a beef with the catholic church (who has been recording births since the 1500s BTW). Besides, learn the UCC and then use it to your advantage because the banks/corporations/etc have to abide by the same rules. There are many traps in the UCC for both sides

As stated by Uniform Commercial Code §1-201(24) and §3-104 (the code that

governs commerce), it is a person's signature put on a loan application,

mortgage application, credit card application, or other promissory note which

gives it value i.e. makes it money. The contract signed (promissory note) is

converted into a "negotiable instrument" by a financial institution and becomes

an asset on the institution's accounting books.

3) Canadian law is totally different from US Law. Canada actually follows closer to English Common than the US because their split did not occur until 1982 whereas the US split occurred in 1776.

Show me a video where the case was dismissed based on the procedural grounds and not because "the plaintiff did not have any evidence" and then I will believe you. Otherwise, this is just another stupid trick. To all who are reading this, stick with the tried and true pleadings rather than try to become someone who creates caselaw. It is difficult for the lawyers and if you lose, you lose big.

1. It ALL has to do with Subject matter jurisidiction and whether or not a sovereign recognizes it.

The defendent KNEW his rights.

Police dont have to be present for a judge to make a ruling, Ive fought traffic tickets and lost, and the cop was a no show-Judge made a ruling, I didnt know my rights.

Note: The Church recorded births, but did not TRADE them on the NYSE, just as is being done today.

America is Bankrupt and our Birth certificates, our Straw man, is used for commerce purposes.

When innocents are killed in battle, its called 'Collateral Damage' and this is Exactly what it is. Collateral. Trade commerce slaves.

Maritime law was used when it served its purpose, AT SEA! Not on land.

Our Law was usurped by the very people that run this country, and its NOT the Church. Comments such as those evidence foolishness.

2. UCC is Maritime Admiralty COMMERCE law, NOT COmmon law case law, which is Constitutionally based, not Statute based.

3. Our legal systems, Canada and the USA, are More similar, than dissimilar.

Both use Maritime COMMERCE Law, its roots are England based-Queen and Rothschild use them around the world for Commerce.

We are not obliged to be under this jurisdiction. IF we so choose.

I uploaded a video earlier of someone in NC where a COP did show up, and the charges were thrown out. Its irrelevant IF one knows the law and justice is upheld in the court.

Edited December 6, 2010 by WildBill

[cjb3]

folks, i have done some research on this concept, also known as strawman, regarding the jurisdicition issue of lower courts and, though i have nothing bookmarked, im afraid WB is totally correct on this one.

since most of the cases brought by P's are done so in courts of record, i have not seen if this strategy would work in a district court setting.....but, like arbitration, one might be willing to try this as just another untried approach.

WC1000, IMHO, it's not that this is a trick....but a more of a very tricky procedure as just one minor slip can inadvertently give acknowledgement of the court and you are screwed.

can it work? maybe, maybe not.....just like any other approach to aggressively defend these scum collectors.