With my responses in Bold Italic, I am posting the following lengthy, much appreciated response:
"The lawyer you quote is correct about justice ..... But in reality should have phrased it slightly differently. He or she said to you "There is no justice in court" or words to this effect.
(actual phrase: "The courts are not about Justice, Jan.")
That is not quite true.
There is no justice for the defendant in the court or for the self representing plaintiff in the courtroom.
(in my case the defendant won big-time, since with their counter-claim they managed to take control of procedures, while having jurisdiction in their favour; i.e Ontario)
Enter this realm at your own peril.
You have just left your rights behind, on land.
There is a kind of justice, albeit only for the other players, since they share the booty, they uphold merchant law and they abide by Admiralty Law.
There is simply no justice for the outsider who unwittingly enters and becomes subject to the essentially foreign jurisdiction once inside the courtroom.
(As indicated above)
Think of it as a border.
Once you cross the Mexican border you can end up in a Mexican jail with no recourse. Why? Like Quebec, Mexico operates under Napoleonic laws.
In a sense you are guilty until proven innocent. Good luck with that.
The courtroom and the world of law is a world beyond the one in which you live and have rights.
The players are lawyers and judges.
They work together. In fact they lunch together.
You may try to represent yourself and yet be robbed, or, conversely, you could pay a lawyer to hold your hand while the court robs you.
Bu virtue of entering their world, the laws under which they operate assure that they get to keep what was yours as their booty. They are allowed to take what is yours because you have left your country and boarded their ship and it matters not one wit whether or not you are aware that you are now subject to different laws once you do so.
In court they will invariably at some point ask you if you, JAN STEEN, "understand". What they mean is "Do you agree to stand under their edicts?" It is pure ritual. YOU have already handed over your agreement by crossing over into this jurisdiction.
ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French jurediction, from Latin jurisdictio(n-), from jus, jur- ‘law’ + dictio ‘saying’ (from dicere ‘say’ ).
THE RIGHT WORDThe authority of our elected and appointed officials refers to their power (often conferred by rank or office) to give orders, require obedience, or make decisions.Their authority is normally limited by their jurisdiction, which is a legally predetermined division of a larger whole, within which someone has a right to rule or decide (: the matter was beyond his jurisdiction).(This excuse was used by the second, senior Master when informing me he had no jurisdiction over prior decisions/ orders made by his 'fellow' in-house Master)
You may even end up walking their plank, too. This is how justice works, once you place yourself under the Law of the Sea which rules the courtroom and all who work there.
Those in that courtroom are not under the Law of the Land, the one from which you may naively expect justice. That is a costly illusion. Your assets, your property, your family and your self have no protection in this new land.
There are a few rare judges out there who buck the system, to some extent, but most will not violate their oath to uphold the terms of the laws under which a courtroom functions, and almost none would risk doing so. Judges and lawyers, like politicians, uphold their oath to the Queen of Canada, which is written right into the oath they take. How many think the Queen is in every meaningful sense the Queen of Canada? How many understand that when she comes here she is here to collect booty during a "royal" visit?
Those judges who do set a new precedent, often do so in favour of the court. Occasionally they may set one in favour of the litigant or the defendant and by extension the rest of us.
More likely, however, it will be the litigant who sets the precedent, by outwitting the system to their own benefit.
(again, in my case, as an out-of-jurisdiction, distant Plaintiff, it was the Defendant/Counter Claimant who managed to manipulate both the laws and the willing Masters of the Court. They saw eye-2-eye so to speak.)
Then everyone may benefit.
Or not, depending on which precedent is set.
Case law precedent has recently been set to the benefit of utility customers due to changes in the law regarding the rights afforded a customer by a contract made in good faith.
This is good news.
(Really? Although it may be so in certain circumstances, I have furious issues about Case Law. The laws state every case is unique! Case Law nullifies that )
Meanwhile, however, the terms of a courtroom are there to sustain that jurisdiction, not the one you are from, and not the one where your complaint exists.
Think of it as theatre with serious clout.
The courtroom is a stage for a separate world unto itself, it uses elevated platforms, according to rank, costumes, bibles, long black gowns, rituals similar to those used in religious rituals, all very kafkaesque.
When you decided to self represent, were you familiar with Admiralty Law, Merchant Law, the laws under which courts operate under, as distinct from the laws which represents you?
(The writer now ventures in to a specific area of a more local concern)
That is why (I hope) you still have retained your very own electromechanical meter, because, whether or not you knew it, when your used the documents that retained that meter you used a process of common law, which is law of a higher order which supersedes statutory laws used by governments, courts, judges, lawyers, corporations, all working within the ironically named "justice" system.
Each one who operates in this realm swears an oath, not to Canada, no, only to the Queen of Canada, an oath to uphold common law. However they can do pretty much as they wish when not inside common law, as long as they play by their own rules.
(AH! "as long as they play by their own Rules" This continues to be my most personal beef: To have experienced, the not so subtle manipulation of the ACTUAL Rules, to suit their own objectives)
If you appear in court and refuse to answer to the name by which the judge and other members of the court address you, if you remained at the back of the gallery and did not stand up when spoken to you using your PUBLIC name, you would not be subject to court laws. Of course it is not that easy, but it is doable.
I may be wrong but, as far as I can make out, your struggle to find justice appears to have operated entirely on foreign turf and foreign terms, all dealt with just as if you went to a foreign "country", which is essentially what you did.
In this foreign country, just as when Alice goes down the rabbit hole and enters Wonderland. a place where what is logical is turned on its head and where justice is arbitrary ("Off With Her Head") , this place you cross over into by passing through what is actually called The Divider" or "Bar" (see pictures) is designed in such a way that it purposely creates all its own rules and takes over and defines the terms and conditions by which you must abide.
In every sense of the word you become merely a visitor to a different country and are now subject to its rules.
While those rules may appear to you to defy all logic and are unlike any rules of any pre-existing understanding and/or ideals you or anyone else who is not within the inner circle may have had about what comprises justice, that is only because you are not let in on the game, since no one tells you that you have left behind the common law land laws that are there to protect you, no one informs you that metaphorically you have departed, and you are now figuratively "at sea".
See?
Merchant law was designed for ships. Admiralty law began as pirate "law", actually outlaw.
Pirate law evolved to become privateer law.
It remains the Law of the Sea.
In search of "justice", you left your own jurisdiction, wherein you had certain rights and powers. Now you are in/under their jurisdiction and are subject to their rules and decisions.
Just as the City of London is a City within a city and has its own laws, just as the Vatican is a City within a city and also operates on its own laws, just as banks also exempt themselves from laws and leave you wondering how they get away with it, so, too, do those inside courtrooms and those who operate by different rules as lawyers and judges.
So while you may enter this world uninformed of the switchover, you then compound the error and succumb to it, mostly because no one tells you, or you never thought to ask.
And it almost never occurs to the defendant to question or ask, nor to the sole self representing plaintiff to ask where they just landed.
Certainly the self representative thinks they are there to represent themselves when they enter this new jurisdiction. In reality, it is literally a case of "when in Rome". The rules are all predetermined and those who seek to represent themselves are no longer representing themselves once they enter inside the borders of this other country.
Worse still, those who enter give away their power to a hierarchical system run by self declared "authorities", a system that is not there to represent you, only itself. That system answers to no one else but the Queen. She is not your friend. In essential matters of she is no different from Queen Isabella who sent Christopher Columbus off to conquer the new world, to rape, pillage, murder and bring back booty for the enrichment of Spain.
He swore an oath to her, he plundered the continent, he declared it a New World simply because he landed there, he ignored the population's prior rights of claim, he and his men took everything from any and all indigenous people and slaughtered them.
He stole all the gold for his Queen. But hey, he upheld his oath to his Queen, right?
To beat this game, the world you need to operate inside is your own world. Common law was created to implement checks and balances on privateers and their self anointed roles and self serving systems. It is there for the aware to use, but no one tells you this. You can only use the laws that favour you if you know they exist and want to know how to use them to your own advantage without getting trapped.
Pirate law is a separate world.
Are you a pirate at sea?
Are you a privateer?
Hardly.
Are you a corporation.
I hope not.
And unlike an aboriginal, you cannot argue any treaty agreement.
Your only treaty to protect your lands is limited to any foothold on your own land that you learn how to protect and maintain, so for those not under treaty there is no overarching treaty to protect you OTHER THAN common law.
That said, common law is bountiful and wonderful.
Use it or lose it.
However,when you enter the courts either metaphorically or physically you become the willing prisoner of privateers who have sworn an oath to the Queen, not to Canada as a sovereign nation, only to the Queen and God.
Yes, they are modern pirates, called privateers. This is considered absolutely legitimate inside that world. It has rules you are not let in on and which do not apply to you. Only the persistently curious come to understand how to use discipline to level this playing field in their own favour.
The players in this world sign oaths to a monarch you imagine does not rule the country you live in. Nor do you imagine she has claims on everything your are and everything you do or make or earn, including a claim on your children.
All of this is based on plunder and booty. If you enter the world of pirates you cannot turn around and hold them to account for the Laws of the Land. This is why they stay on the ship, and then lure you onboard.
Anyone who unwittingly boards that ship might as well push a boulder up a hill forever, since that ship is its own foreign country and is intended to work outside of your own land based inherent rights.
To board that ship turns those on board into your intermediaries and, worse yet, essentially you consent to make them into your trustees, since to enter court is in effect to declare yourself incompetent to handle your own affairs, business affairs, property issues, etc.
You have instead chosen to try to operate inside that law of the sea, aboard that ship, a foreign domain which uses your consent by way of entry, your agreement to be governed, and turns it all against you.
This is a realm that depends upon your unwitting forfeiture of essential rights, your belief that any justice is only to be found inside their separate system.
This foreign realm is based on one single foundation, consent. The governed must grant their consent, you must hand over your compliance with court terms, your willingness to enter a world that operates inside their rights over you, once you are within Admiralty Law settings practicing statutory law, using their laws, not yours.
In that world you are JAN STEEN, not Jan Steen.
Look at your birth certificate registration back to the authorities, it uses your PUBLIC name, as does "your" driver's license registration back to those authorities, and, if you "own" land, as does "your" certificate of title for your "own" land, also registered back to the authorities.
All of these are not rights, they are non unalienable. Like "your" pension, they are merely government sanctioned benefits and privileges, just as easily taken away as given since none of them are unalienable rights.
Anything which renders you beholden to others is not yours to own.
In that world, unless you challenge it, the fact of your very birth serves as collateral for a debt they invent and which you owe. In that world you yourself and all you own have been registered back to the Queen as serfs, slaves, as hers to own. You serve as collateral for yourself, since your parents have already offered you up as collateral for your own birth, ditto for your driver's license, which grants you permission to use roads you fund to build but do not own the right to use, a "permission" or "benefit" or "privilege" as distinct from a right.
At any moment those who uphold Admiralty Law can arbitrarily revoke that same or any of a long list of "privileges" and can do so for almost any arbitrary reason. This includes a kind of implicit "lease back" arrangement concerning your property, wherein you are merely a tenant of the Queen, living on property which, like your body, your wages, your income (tax), also all serve as collateral for a debt you actually do not owe to the queen or government.
And those who realize that they owe no debt definitely represent a threat to the status quo.
And in that world's view, you have no property, no rights , since all forms of registration involve you handing back what is yours to those who own it and you once you do so.
In order to properly represent your own private rights under the Law of the Land, essentially you must correctly assert that NO ONE can serve as intermediary between you and the Universe.
You must actively remind them of what they swore an oath to, that is that your own common law rights are of a higher order than the courts rules, and that your property and private life are yours.
For example, the documents you used to refuse the contractual offer of a smart meter intentionally were designed in such a way that as a private man on private property (not a "premises") you have used common law documents for which every single word was very carefully hand picked, then given to you for free, whether or not you grasp the import of what is there to use, done so that you could prove that you did NOT enter their realm of Admiralty Law ( Law of the Sea ) and that you (versus YOU) are not subject to plunder of your booty, (your metadata, your meter base, your property).
Instead those precious documents you use operate under Common Law. They were created to protect you from self declared "authorities" who only use statutory law which, in turn, was created to protect self declared "authorities" from you.
Common law includes and protects you via trespass law, electrical code law, and, most important of all, contract law, all of which operate under common law.
As for the surveillance grid, the Notices you have used to refuse the smart meter represent your repeat refusal of a series of new contractual offers made by a corporation.
It is that simple.
You have every right to demand that they adhere to the original terms of your contract and to refuse to allow them to sever your bond of ownership by removal of your meter, no matter which uninsurable corporate commercial radar transceiver antenna device they seek to put in place of what you own, BEFORE they also separately leave after they STEAL your very own meter.
The common law documents you use protect your private rights under the Law of the Land.
The use of those bc-freedom COR and NOD-MCP documents constitute your lawful assertion of your private rights to adhere to the terms of your original commercial contract on your own terms.
Not to mention these documents claim your possession of the meter this corporation wants to steal away.
What many are successfully using now is an NOL, a Notice of Liability addressed not to an abstraction called a corporation, but to those men and women behind that corporate banner, those who assumed that they could hide behind that abstraction and commit plunder.
Meanwhile smart grid precipitated sickness, fires and deaths occurred, all because pirate utility corporations in bed with pirate governments all over the world had largely outwitted the majority of energy customers and had transferred all liability for their own actions back on to the customers.
Now?
Game on.
Everywhere everyone is now issuing Notice of Personal Liability addressed to actual individuals, who are culpable for the smart grid and Technological Trespass on private property, such as your body, your home, and your life. And this NOL has already forced them to not act on threats of disconnection and has already prevented actual disconnections.
You know how in most any courtroom there is that physical barricade that one is expected to cross through in order to engage with those on the other side? Often it has a gate or a set of gates between those in the courtroom and the players on the otherwise of that barricade?
That delineation, that barricade and gateway, may appear to be merely symbolic but it is very real.
Likewise, when you are addressed in the room as JAN STEEN versus Jan Steen, if you reply and stand up, in that moment you forfeit your private rights, the minute you agree to be the former, not the latter.
If you say you are acting as an Authorized Representative of Jan Steen, that is different. At that moment you begin to claim a higher jurisdiction than the judge in the courtroom. Many judges have fled the courtroom when this is done by those in the know. But of course one must know exactly what one is doing and how to do every minute of it or this will fail.
Never underestimate the power which that barricade represents if you acknowledge it, or stand under it, (understand means just that) or cross through that border, symbolizing your legal consent and your compliance to the terms of this foreign country, which gives all who live there the power to extinguish your access to justice - in the name of "justice".
The barricade is there on purpose. It stands as the division line between your rights and the singularly other rights of the courts, judges, lawyers, corporations, all which override and sever your rights the minute you "under-stand" or answer to your full name JAN STEEN or cross over into the inner sanctum of any courtroom.
That "bar" represents the railing of a pirate ship. As soon as you cross over you forfeit your own jurisdiction under the Law of the Land and you come under an entirely different jurisdiction, Admiralty Law.
Remember that while every judge and every lawyer swears an oath to the Queen of Canada and to God to uphold the laws of Admiralty and Merchant Law, but they also swear to acknowledge Common Law.
If you remain ignorant, they can do as they wish and you will have no recourse once you enter their terms."
Jan Steen thanks you so very much for your grandiose effort, and informed views!
May we, together, turn this powder-kegged, infested ship around!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Post a Comment