Do Not Enter A Plea

[FreeManAndHisDog]

Jurisdiction - under oath or assumed oath...

A Jurisdiction is a private set of laws / codes / statutes / rules / regulations of a private society.

When you stand out from under every jurisdiction (out from under every private society and their private laws / codes / rules / statutes etc.) you stand free and sovereign in common law true, - free to make law with your fellow man by agreement, consent, contract and mutual under-standing.

The common law is the basis of all law. This is not to be mistaken with the Common Law Jurisdiction that the courts often administer which is really the fundamental true common law that is then constrained by a created private legal system developed through decisions of courts and similar tribunals.

People often take on the court's offered Common Law Jurisdiction when they contract with the court and accept the created private legal system developed through decisions of courts that constrain their use of common law. But you don't have to do this, and you can stay in true common law, as explained by Clive Boustred [Do Not Plea] and Bill Thornton [Sovereignty] [Motions] [Forms] in detail. This is done by not pleading (not entering a plea).

The common law true is the fundamental basis of all private societies, under which the society as a Trust is created and their jurisdiction (their private laws of the society) is defined, including the entities and any roles under it.


Regarding entering a plea...

If you plead yes Guilty, you are; 1, Accepting the entered private law in the case, and 2, Accepting that you broke the private law that you just accepted you stand under.
If you plead Not Guilty, you are; 1. Accepting the entered private law in the case, and 2, Denying that you broke the private law that you just accepted you stand under.

Either way, by entering a plea, you are not challenging their claim that they have jurisdiction over you, you are accepting that you under-stand (stand under) their law, and you are only arguing (under their private law) whether you did or did not break it.

Either way, you submit to their jurisdiction (private set of laws / rules).

- Absolutely do not enter a plea. - Do Not Plea - Do not contract with them! (3 mins)

This is in Criminal Proceedings. There is a similar way in Civil Proceedings. Either way the law must be entered into the court.

If you don't want to accept the other party's jurisdiction, then you must challenge that jurisdiction, whether it is Criminal or Civil. Only the names (titles) of the entered forms to the court differ, but it is the body - the substance - of the document that matters.


Note. There are two things that you have to be careful not to submit to...
i. The constrained jurisdiction of the court's rules - i.e. their Common Law Jurisdiction (rather than common law true).
ii. The entered private law that is being presented by the other party.

If you are going to court, you want the court under your control so that you can challenge the other party.

As Bill Thornton explains in detail, by not submitting to their Common Law Jurisdiction (which is constrained by their legal system - an extended set of private rulings) then you may establish your own "court of record", challenge the other party's jurisdiction (with a counterclaim) and enter you own rulings to be tried by yourself or the tribunal.

You can stay out of the court's offered Common Law Jurisdiction (their private constrained rulings around the common law) and stay in common law true (with the freedom to introduce any law or ruling you wish) by entering the court in special appearance only. This is best done in writing though when you make a claim or counterclaim, or a declaration to the court that you are dealing with. Then you can always simply refer to what is on record in the court.

See the counterclaim here for an example: Common Law Action. ( Procedure )


COPPERCARDS - Articles: Common Law | Court | Habeas Corpus


We certainly have been made slaves through very complicated methods, so stealthily people don't even know they are in servitude.

How they get power over us...
o Members of a private society since birth...
o The Artificial Person (corporate-entity) as a "Trust"


PS. Links.

[FreeManAndHisDog]

Proof of Claim - How it is done and why does it work...

Regarding claims / charges against you in a court, whether Civil or Criminal.

Here is the concept associated with the counterclaim or declaration that has been used in cases to successfully challenge the other party in order to release you from their jurisdiction. - Why asking for proof of claim of their jurisdiction over you works.

In pieces...

a. The other party has a Claim / Charge against you. (This may be called various things whether Civil or Criminal, but it is still a kind of "claim").

b. Their Claim is that you have broken Law X (they could quote Acts / Statutes / Codes or whatever they feel like).

c. First know, that Law X is private law.

d. According to their Claim / Charge that you have broken Law X, it is implied that first you have accepted that you stand under Law X.

e. So really, their claim against you in full is as such; 1, You accept and stand under Law X (implied), and 2, You have broken Law X (explicit).

f. As you see now, if someone is saying you have broken a law, they are first implying that you stand under (have agreed to, have consented to) that law.

g. So when you start arguing whether you have broken Law X or not, you are also accepting 1 that you stand under Law X. - Because if you didn't stand under Law X why would you be arguing about it? Do not argue - do not plea - do not enter Guilty or Not Guilty (Criminal) and do not enter No Contest (Civil) or argue their law that they entered into the court.

h. When you ask for a proof of their claim against you. Instead of arguing whether or not you broke Law X 2, you are simply asking them... "ok, if you claim I have broken your Law X, then first produce proof that I stand under Law X".

i. ...this is called challenging jurisdiction - this is called asking for a proof of their claim against you - you ask for proof that you stand under their jurisdiction (their private law).

j. If the other party cannot prove that you stand under (have agreed to or consented to) that private law that they are claiming you broke, then they don't even have a case.


Of course, whether you can actually succeed depends on your previous actions; if you had previously agreed to their law, therefore taking on liability or an obligation to perform, and then not meeting that agreement, and they can show adequately that you consented to their laws, then their claim against you is valid.

Regarding civil matters, how you may have contracted with them under their offered private law (submitted to their jurisdiction), see this thread...
o How do/did I give consent?

[foleyboy]

excellently put FreeMan,

thats exactly they way iv been putting things together in my head and its good that you'v managed to put it all down in an easy step-by-step way for everyone to see.

good job my friend,

Gary

[FreeManAndHisDog]

excellently put FreeMan,

thats exactly they way iv been putting things together in my head and its good that you'v managed to put it all down in an easy step-by-step way for everyone to see.

good job my friend,

Thanks Gary. Always step by step construction, deconstruction and reconstruction of your model in order to learn.


On the "Special Appearances"...

I think it is very difficult to do it orally.
I wouldn't like to walk into court and try to remember all the things I have to say.

From others' experience who has been successful in their claims / counterclaims or even challenging the other party's claim of jurisdiction in Criminal matters, it seems that we are saved, - we can put it into the record on file and in court we can simply refer to the record.

The "special appearance" comes about more explicitly in the paperwork where you give two things...
p. You give your standing / status at law - you are "a people" / one of the people (i.e. a human being, thus implied sovereign).
q. You establish the court that you are entering - a "court of record" (the court of a sovereign), - you do not recognize any other court in your records.

Then when asked orally, you simply refer to the record.

Rather than stating your "special appearance" and all the other things orally, so as not to (i.) submit to the court's offered jurisdiction (rulings), and so as not to (ii.) stand under the other party's introduced private law, it can all be entered explicitly in writing so that you can simply refer to the record when necessary. The "special appearance" achieves i. (as given by p and q above), and the challenge to jurisdiction (request for a proof of the other party's claim that they have jurisdiction over you) is then stated which is the challenge to their case against you - achieving ii.


See the Common Law Action example documents from a successful common law case (as RTF)...
1. Elements of Common Law Action
2. Caption
3. Declaration Template <-- useful info
4. Declaration <-- "special appearance" established by p and q on record, followed by jurisdictional challenge (ii.)
5. Counterclaim <-- "special appearance" established by p and q on record, followed by jurisdictional challenge (ii.)
6. Law of the Case

In the Procedure link is a number of documents. Bill Thornton refers to these documents in his three seminars [1] [2] [3].

It may be necessary to go back and forth between the documents and the seminars a number of times in studying this to try to fully know what he is doing.

On learning this, I noticed it was the same that Clive Boustred [4] had done effectively the same thing for a Criminal case against him. He did not enter a plea (thus he did not accept to stand under the other party's introduced law) and then challenged the other party's jurisdiction over him with a declaration asking them to produce a proof of their claim that he stands under their jurisdiction (their private law).

See the COPPERCARDS articles.

Bill Thornton gives the example doing the same for a Civil case. One party makes a claim against you. The claim says; 1, you stand under the entered private law in the case, and 2, that you broke the private law that you stand under.

Except for usually, number 1 here is invisible - it is not stated. They just state 2. Thus 1 is implied and people don't think to even challenge 1. Very clever and sneaky.

People usually go on to argue number 2, thus implying that they have accepted 1. - that they accept they stand under the other party's private law.

Challenging jurisdiction (private law) challenges them to give a proof of claim that you stand under their private law to begin with.


(Note. a "people" / human being is the real you - human (body, 2nd density) being (mind, 3rd density). On the other hand, a 'Citizen', 'Subject', 'Resident', 'Alien', 'Driver', 'Police Officer', 'Minister' etc. are all created legal-fictions that are legislated into existence - they are entities with roles that may be played by a real human being / human being's natural person that then becomes the trustee for that role. The people create government as a Trust and thus control it - grant it rights to establish a limited jurisdiction, the government then creates legal-fictions such as a 'President', 'Minister', 'Citizen', 'Resident', 'Alien' etc. under its jurisdiction that it controls and grants rights to to fulfil their duty/oath to the government. The government then fools the people in acting these roles as 'Citizen' in order to have power over them under its jurisdiction. The government may do as it pleases with its created entities that under-stand it, but has no such power over the people that over-stand it, lest they are acting a role or have broken the common law. People or Citizen?)

More information on courts and cases...
o An answer to gunpoint jurisdiction?


( Fundamentals of the common law etc. (1-5) )

[Jakbop]

Hi F&HD, thanks for setting this out.

Could you help clarify my mind by confirming these points:
If I were to counterclaim to a magistrate courts summons/declaration, would it not be wise to issue a counterdeclaration to a Crown Court. If so, then if the magistrate's court was in say, North Wales, and I lived in Liverpool, would that be OK to in effect transfer the Action to Liverpool Crown Court, by making my Declaration to the Crown Court there, and serving that Declaration to the Defendant.

Does the counterclaim then still mean I ought to answer the summons to the magistrate's court and go there to request proof of Jurisdiction, after having issued my counterclaim (or even overlapping at the same time, let's say?

[Scouser]

Listen to this: http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/lectu ... index.html

At least the first part I'm sure it covers counter-claims.

[Jakbop]

Yes, I need to listen to them all again, since last year when I I first listened. I had it to do, and I'm going to start straight away. Thanks Scouser.

[absconditus]

See the Common Law Action example documents from a successful common law case (as RTF)...
1. Elements of Common Law Action
2. Caption
3. Declaration Template <-- useful info
4. Declaration <-- "special appearance" established by p and q on record, followed by jurisdictional challenge (ii.)
5. Counterclaim <-- "special appearance" established by p and q on record, followed by jurisdictional challenge (ii.)
6. Law of the Case

FreeManAndHisDog Are these documents relevent to the UK ?

[jasmine75]

FreeManAndHisDog Are these documents relevent to the UK ?

Careful, absconditus, you are taking advice from people who do not understand court procedure.
Not entering a plea will not prevent a case from proceeding.

[Scouser]

See the Common Law Action example documents from a successful common law case (as RTF)...
1. Elements of Common Law Action
2. Caption
3. Declaration Template <-- useful info
4. Declaration <-- "special appearance" established by p and q on record, followed by jurisdictional challenge (ii.)
5. Counterclaim <-- "special appearance" established by p and q on record, followed by jurisdictional challenge (ii.)
6. Law of the Case

FreeManAndHisDog Are these documents relevent to the UK ?

They are absolutely relevant to *any* Court of common law Jurisdiction.

The UNITED KINGDOM is a POLITICAL STATE, it uses a different Jurisdiction & court system than the common law.