'NEGATIVE AVERMENT, pleading, evidence. An averment in some of the pleadings in a case in which a negative is asserted. It is a general rule, established for the purpose of shortening and facilitating investigations, that the point in issue is to be proved by the party who asserts the affirmative; 1 Phil. Ev. 184; Bull N. P. 298; but as this rule is not founded on any presumption of law in favor of the party, but is merely a rule of practice and convenience, it, ceases in all cases when the presumption of law is thrown into the opposite scale.' -- I thought otherwise but I could be wrong.

'Offer and acceptance analysis is a traditional approach in contract law used to determine whether an agreement exists between two parties. Agreement consists of an offer by an indication of one person (the "offeror") to another (the "offeree") of the offeror's willingness to enter into a contract on certain terms without further negotiations. A contract is said to come into existence when acceptance of an offer (agreement to the terms in it) has been communicated to the offeror by the offeree and there has been consideration bargained-for induced by promises or a promise and performance. Treitel defines an offer as "an expression of willingness to contract on certain terms, made with the intention that it shall become binding as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom it is addressed", the "offeree". An offer is a statement of the terms on which the offeror is willing to be bound. It is the present contractual intent to be bound by a contract with definite and certain terms communicated to the offeree. The "expression" referred to in the definition may take different forms, such as a letter, newspaper, fax, email and even conduct, as long as it communicates the basis on which the offeror is prepared to contract. -- If the offeree rejects the offer, the offer has been destroyed and cannot be accepted at a future time. [Also, an offer is destroyed a counter offer.] The "mirror image rule" states that if you are to accept an offer, you must accept an offer exactly, without modifications; if you change the offer in any way, this is a counter-offer that kills the original offer. It should be noted that a mere inquiry (about terms of an offer) is not a counter offer and leaves the offer intact.' -- That's really interesting, tell me more.

'The Roman orator and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero, in his speech Pro Roscio Amerino, section 84, attributed the expression cui bono to the Roman consul and censor Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla: “The famous Lucius Cassius, whom the Roman people used to regard as a very honest and wise judge, was in the habit of asking, time and again, 'To whose benefit?'"' -- One may renounce a 'law' introduced for his own 'benefit' (Maxim of Law)

'Estoppel in English law is a doctrine that may be used in certain situations to prevent a person from relying upon certain rights, or upon a set of facts (e.g. words said or actions performed) which is different from an earlier set of facts. #Promissory estoppel is the doctrine that prevents a party from acting in a certain way because the first party promised not to, and the second party relied on that promise and acted upon it. In English law, a promise made without consideration is generally not enforceable, and is known as a gratuitous promise. For example, a car salesman promises not to sell a car over the weekend, but does so, the promise cannot be enforced. If however, the car salesman accepts one penny in consideration for the promise, the promise is binding and enforceable in court. Estoppel is one of the exceptions to this rule. Promissory estoppel requires (1) an unequivocal promise by words or conduct, (2) a change in position of the promisee as a result of the promise (not necessarily to their detriment), (3) inequity if the promisor were to go back on the promise. Estoppel is "a shield not a sword" – it cannot be used as the basis of an action on its own. It also does not extinguish rights. -- #Estoppel by acquiescence: The doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence may prevail when Party A makes legal notice to Party B of Party A's assertion of a fact or legal principle or claim, and Party B fails to refute, reply to, or to defend (within "a reasonable period of time") against said claim. In this circumstance, Party B is said to have acquiesced to the claim or position taken by Party A, and by acquiescence, generally is considered to have lost the legal right to make a counterclaim.'

'Sometimes an unscrupulous adversary lulls another into a false sense of security and inaction, and then seeks to capitalize on technicalities implicated thereby, such as time deadlines missed by the unsuspecting victim. Fortunately Virginia courts are empowered to resolve such injustices based on equity instead of on legal technicalities. “Courts of equity will not permit a party by his or her words and conduct to manipulate judicial proceedings in a manner that will work an injustice by inducing the adverse party not to defend the cause. Estoppel by conduct, whereby a party will not be heard to deny that which he has induced others to rely upon as true, extends without limit throughout the law.” Emrich v. Emrich, 9 Va. App. 288, 293-294 (1989).' -- Consequences will never be the same.

'Dialogical Estoppel: As can be seen, the heart of the idea behind legal estoppel is the idea of consistency. A similar concept, “dialogical estoppel,” can be used to justify the libertarian conception of rights, because of the reciprocity inherent in the libertarian tenet that force is legitimate only in response to force. The basic insight behind this theory of rights is that a person cannot consistently object to being punished if he has himself initiated force. He is (dialogically) “estopped” from asserting the impropriety of the force used to punish him, because of his own coercive behavior. This theory also establishes the validity of the libertarian conception of rights as being strictly negative rights against aggression, the initiation of force. The point where punishment needs to be justified is when we attempt to inflict punishment upon a person who opposes the punishment. Thus, using a philosophical, generalized version of “dialogical” estoppel, I want to justify punishment in just this situation, by showing that an aggressor is estopped from objecting to his punishment. Under the principle of dialogical estoppel, or simply estoppel for short, a person is estopped from making certain claims during discourse if these claims are inconsistent and contradictory. To say that a person is estopped from making certain claims means that the claims cannot even possibly be right, because they are contradictory. It is to recognize that his assertion is simply wrong because it is contradictory. Applying estoppel in such a manner perfectly complements the very purpose of dialogue. Dialogue, discourse, or argument—terms which are used interchangeably herein—is by its nature an activity aimed at finding truth. Anyone engaged in argument is necessarily endeavoring to discern the truth about some particular subject; to the extent this is not the case, there is no dialogue occurring, but mere babbling or even physical fighting. Nor can this be denied. Anyone engaging in argument long enough to deny that truth is the goal of discourse contradicts himself, because he is himself asserting or challenging the truth of a given proposition. Thus, the assertion as true of anything that simply cannot be true is incompatible with the very purpose of discourse. Anything that cannot be true is contrary to the truth-finding purpose of discourse, and thus is not permissible within the bounds of the discourse. And contradictions are certainly the archetype of propositions that cannot be true. A and not-A cannot both be true at the same time and in the same respect. This is why participants in discourse must be consistent. If an arguer need not be consistent, truth-finding cannot occur. And just as the traditional legal theory of estoppel mandates a sort of consistency in a legal context, the more general use of estoppel can be used to require consistency in discourse. The theory of estoppel that I propose is nothing more than a convenient way to apply the requirement of consistency to arguers, to those engaged in discourse, dialogue, debate, discussion, or argument. Because discourse is a truth-finding activity, any such contradictory claims should be disregarded, they should not be heard, since they cannot possibly be true. Dialogical estoppel is thus a rule of discourse that rules out of bounds any inconsistent, mutually contradictory claims, because they are contrary to the very goal of discourse. This rule is based solely on the recognition that discourse is a truth-seeking activity and that contradictions, which are necessarily untrue, are incompatible with discourse and thus should not be allowed. The validity of this rule is undeniable, because it is necessarily presupposed by any participant in discourse.'

'Women are human beings, and consequently have all the natural rights that any human beings can have. They have just as good a right to make laws as men have, and no better; AND THAT IS JUST NO RIGHT AT ALL. No human being, nor any number of human beings, have any right to make laws, and compel other human beings to obey them. To say that they have is to say that they are the masters and owners of those of whom they require such obedience. The only law that any human being can rightfully be compelled to obey is simply the law of justice. And justice is not a thing that is made, or that can be unmade, or altered, by any human authority. It is a natural principle, inhering in the very nature of man and of things. This natural principle, which we will call justice, and which assigns to each and every human being, is, I repeat, not a thing that is made, but is a matter of science to be learned, like mathematics, or chemistry, or geology. And all the laws, so called, that men have ever made, either to create, define, or control the rights of individuals, were intrinsically just as absurd and ridiculous as would be laws to create, define, or control mathematics, or chemistry, or geology.'

'A threatening attorney must be made to realize that his life is much better returned to intimidating average people. He should want nothing to do with you. You are the pig who enjoys getting dirty. When your name is mentioned to him, it should trigger a recurring nightmare and sudden stomach pain. Remember, attorneys do not want legal problems resolved. Resolution of conflicts dries up his billable hours. He wants as much chaos and destruction as possible. That way he becomes more important. However, it’s amazing how despite a tolerance for causing pain for others he will usually have a very low tolerance for pain himself. Most attorneys have no balls. I make sure I don’t seem like I’m crazy and emotional, I seem crazy and deliberate. No one wants to get into a legal fight with someone who’s crazy and deliberate.' -- I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request. Do you have any evidence to suggest this matter hasn't already been settled in the private?

'Ubi eadem ratio, ubi eadum lex; et de similibus idem est judicium." ("Where the same reason exists, there the same law prevails; and, of things similar, the judgment is similar.")'

'...it is not possible to insure oneself against every conceivable "risk." Rather, it is only possible to insure oneself against "accidents," i.e., risks over whose outcome the insured has no control and to which he contributes nothing. ...the un-insurability of individual actions and sentiments (in contradistinction to accidents) implies that it is also impossible to insure oneself against the risk of damages resulting from one’s own prior aggression or provocation. Further, due to the same reasons and financial concerns, insurers will tend to require that their clients abstain from all forms of vigilante justice (except perhaps under quite extraordinary circumstances), for vigilante justice, even if justified, invariably causes uncertainty and provokes possible third party intervention. -- Just as insurers charge less if homeowners have an alarm system or a safe installed, so would a trained gun owner represent a lower insurance risk.'

'#Equity follows the law #Equity will not aid a volunteer: Equity cannot be used to take back a benefit that was voluntarily but mistakenly conferred without consultation of the receiver. This maxim protects the doctrine of choice. A volunteer is not merely someone who acts selflessly. In the legal (and equitable) context, it refers to someone who provides a benefit regardless of whether the recipient wants it. For example, when someone mistakenly builds an improvement on a home, neither equity nor restitution will allow the improver to recover... The exception is if the doctrine of estoppel applies. #Equity will not complete an imperfect gift: If a donor has made an imperfect gift, i.e. lacking the formalities required at common law, equity will not assist the intended donee. A subset of equity will not assist a volunteer. #Equity will not allow a trust to fail for want of a trustee: If there is no trustee, whoever has title to the trust property will be considered the trustee.'

'This is the first draft of the specific protocols for justice in cyberspace including arbitration proceedings. Law in the absence of centralized force has worked quite well, depending upon ostracism, reputation, and outlawry as its primary enforcement mechanisms. It was generally replaced by state law, not by popular demand, but by force of arms. Our justice rests upon our commitment to these common principles. Strong commitment to our principles will give us justice that is as complete as possible; partial commitment will yield inferior justice. The protocols are voluntary. They form a reference point for commercial activity. Entities may describe their expectations in economic interactions by stating "we follow the Common Economic Protocols explicitly", or "we follow all of the Common Economic Protocols except...", or "we follow all the Common Economic Protocols, plus...". -- 3.0 Maxims of Law: #Where there is the same reason, there is the same law.'

"You can discharge all these taxes just by your signature. Your signature alone has value because you are the creditor of the [government]. If the [government] can use your signature to create money, then you can use your signature to create money. And that's all discharging debt is. It's not coming out of some magic fund somewhere. You're just discharging obligations. For private companies, send a promissory note with your signature. They can cash that. Look up the definition of cash. A promise to pay is cash." -- "All becoming a citizen in another country is, is getting formal recognition of your TRUST to do business with that country. Becoming a citizen, and achieving citizen-ship, is just getting recognition from this new jurisdiction that you can do business with it." -- Full MP3: http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-39904/TS-523050.mp3

"You are your own sovereign. Your LEGAL PERSON, your agent in commerce, they can use that to interact with you but they don't have jurisdiction over it; they can only gain jurisdiction over it by contracting with it. Other than that, it's yours, it's sovereign, and it's your agent in commerce. it's your vessel, your commercial vessel, to use to engage in commerce around the world with whoever you want, and that's your common law 'right' ... ['Business'] is described in their own [codes] as anything performing the function of government. Of course they only have jurisdiction over their own business; their business is their business! So they have to make you believe that your business is their business as well."

Trusts: The Holy Trinity: #The Father/God/Testator/Executor/Administrator/(Beneficiary acting as Executor/Administrator/Director)/(Beneficiary-appointed Power of Attorney/Executor/Administrator/Director) ORDERS—> #The Holy Ghost/Legal Fiction/Corporation/Government/Justice/Lawyer/Employee/Agent/Public Servant/Public Trustee/Fiduciary/Trustee FOR THE BENEFIT OF—> #The Son/Man/Share-holder/Equity-holder//Sole Beneficiary/Beneficiary/(Grantor) -- "You're not showing up at court as a legal person. You're showing up because a hearing is being conducted for a legal person you have an interest in. The NAME doesn't matter, only your function, what role you're there to play. If you're a Man then you're the Beneficiary and the Executor/Administrator – not the Trustee. You set policy. Statutes only apply to Public Trustees. Your Birth Certificate is evidence you are the sole shareholder. It is your receipt for the investment which makes you the shareholder. You own all the equity in that NAME."

'Can you have one without the other?'

'Schenck v. United States. Holmes: 'The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.' The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is ... on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact. Despite Schenck being limited, the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are blatantly obvious.'

'As Schelling says, the right to be sued is the power to make a promise. Since a private internet court must attract business without the machinery of the state, most of its rulings would need to be public. It would want to develop a reputation as a truth- and fairness-seeking body. Its opinions would need to be clear, well-reasoned, and principled. Past rulings would serve effectively as advertisements to bring in future business. It could occasionally offer secret proceedings if both parties publicly agreed to be bound by them, but in equilibrium, these would cost more since they could not be used as advertisements. Courts will compete on fees and reputation for fairness. This will generate a search for efficient rules of civil procedure... Since the enforcement mechanism relies entirely on reputation, and firms can always “declare bankruptcy” on their reputation and start over, the cases that will be brought will be relatively small, at least at first.'

'...Babylon's Religious Priesthood is commonly recognizable as the source of all of the modern so called "Laws of Commerce". These "Laws of Commerce" are shown to be a specific body of Codes which authorize the Administration of the Compelling Force of the State in the En-Force-ment of Contracts, mostly for Payments of Debts. The ancient Babylonian Priests were involved because Contracts were deemed to be a form of "Oath" entered into by the contracting parties; and the approval of their Gods were invoked so as to more effectively legitimize/bamboozle the entire process in the minds and the consciences of the contracting parties and all public witnesses. Under the ancient Babylonian Religious Codes, "Slavery" is clearly facilitated. People were not recognized as People but were items in Commerce. The text-book says that "The slave is not regarded or spoken of as a man, but as a thing, and is reckoned in the same way as cattle."' -- Nothing personal, Jack. It's just good business.

'This video allegedly shows how on May 12th, a Rochester woman was arrested for taping a traffic stop in front of her home.' -- (Woman: "This is my front yard... it's my right." -- Law: CONTROVERSY. There is no private property in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.) -- Officer: "I'm going to ask you to..." -- Law: So, you haven't yet asked me to consider your offer, Officer? [OFFER-SIR] -- Officer: "I'm trying to give you an order..." -- Law: And would I be obliged to accept your offer of an order if you were to offer it, Officer? -- Woman: "I don't understand your order." (Law: No consent to acceptance of offers of orders has been given. However, property/proprietary controversy remains.) -- Officer: "I'm trying to give you a warning." Law: Are you offering me a warning, Officer? Am I obliged to accept your offer of a warning, Officer? -- Officer: "...this is not right." Law: Are you qualified to make that determination, Officer? What is your bond number for presentment at court?

'In common law legal systems, a trust is a relationship between three parties whereby property (real or personal, tangible or intangible) is transferred by one party to be held by another party for the benefit of a third party. A trust is created by a settlor, who transfers some or all of his property to a trustee, who holds that trust property (or trust corpus) for the benefit of the beneficiaries (archaically known as the cestui que use, or cestui que trust). The trustee has legal title to the trust property, but the beneficiaries have equitable title to the trust property. The trustee owes a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries, who are the "beneficial" owners of the trust property. (Note: A trustee may be either a natural person, or an entity, and there may be a single trustee or multiple co-trustees. There may be a single beneficiary or multiple beneficiaries. The settlor may himself be a beneficiary.) The trust is governed by the terms under which it was created.'

'Hayes has embarked on an effort to legally prove that the enforced collection of council tax by government is unlawful because no contract has been agreed between the individual and the state. His argument is based on the sound legal principle that just like the council, Hayes can represent himself as a third party in court and that "Roger Hayes" is a corporation and must be treated as one in the eyes of the law. The British government doesn't want this kind of information going viral in the public domain because it is scared stiff of a repeat of the infamous poll tax riots of 1990, a massive tax revolt in the UK that forced the Thatcher government to scrap the poll tax altogether because of mass civil disobedience and refusal to pay. When viewers in the UK attempt to watch videos of the protest, they are met with the message, "This content is not available in your country due to a government removal request."' -- It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. (Maxims of Law)

'Own much?' -- None dare call it COMMUNISM.

'For assignment to be effective, it must occur in the present. A promise to assign in the future has no legal effect. Assignor remains liable unless there is an agreement to the contrary. An agreement must manifest intent to transfer rights, it may not necessarily be in writing, words will do, and the rights assigned must be certain. The effect of a valid assignment is to extinguish privity between the assignor and the obligor and create privity between the obligor and the assignee. The common law favors the freedom of assignment, so an assignment will generally be permitted unless there is an express prohibition against assignment in the contract. Where assignment is thus permitted, the assignor need not consult the other party to the contract. An assignment cannot have any effect on the duties of the other party to the contract, nor can it reduce the possibility of the other party receiving full performance of the same quality.'

'7 Reasons why Credit Card/Loan agreements are unlawful or why you don't owe your bank/credit card company anything: #Your Credit Card Agreement is an unlawful contract as it is ONLY signed by you – constituting a unilateral agreement. (Contract Law) #All contracts, in order to be valid, must be signed by someone able to bind the corporation in contract. (Contract Law) #You do not have to pay statements, only invoices. (Bills of Exchange Act 1882) #You are not lawfully bound to pay anything which is unsigned. (Bills of Exchange Act 1882) #The uppercase name on the credit card is not your name, but a 'corporate entity'. (Blacks Law Dictionary) #The governments are so desperate to keep this racket going, that they will bail out ANY bank that gets into trouble! Being in debt is one of the consequences of playing the game #There is not enough Money in circulation for everyone to pay off ALL the debts! #The whole system is totally fraudulent...' -- Prove it to yourself.

'Dominant Social Theme: These hackers are simply irresponsible. -- Free-Market Analysis: All of a sudden, as a result of Julian Assange's imprisonment, a dominant theme that we never expected to be challenged so soon is front and center. The idea of state monopoly justice has suddenly come under fire by a group of young hackers that are questioning how the state defines criminality. ...we believe that we are witnessing, therefore, yet another important turning point in the evolution of Internet technology. A meme (state monopoly justice), one we did not imagine would be much questioned for years to come, is right in the middle of the current news cycle and larger news conversation. Whether the it is controlled or not is almost beside-the-point. Larger issues are now on the table. We would anticipate over the next few years that the whole issue of Admiralty law will become a good deal more high-profile.'

'To say a person is estopped from making certain claims means that ... he will not be heard to make a statement which is flatly inconsistent with his earlier behaviour (and which another relied upon). Principled application of the estoppel principle would result in a free society. For all coercive crimes could be: punished (if not by the state, then at least by victims or their agents or defenders); and all non-coercive "crimes" could not be enforced. Since an arguer is estopped from denying the validity of estoppel in general, he must accept its validity—and he must also accept the validity of the results of its application. [This] framework establishes the validity of the libertarian nonaggression principle, which has been shown by many others to justify a libertarian or at least a minimalist or night-watchman state. Thus, everyone "must" accept the validity of the free society; to urge otherwise is to argue for inconsistency, and to be inconsistent, and to necessarily be wrong.'

"The judge has to influence the attorney on the other side to your benefit. You have to give tools to the judges that they can use."

'#Management Trusts: Used for the operation of an existing or new startup business. #Family Trusts: To manage your day-to-day personal affairs. #Off-shore Trusts: For the ultimate in financial security and privacy. #Holding Trusts: This Trust is like a vault. Holding property for complete protection. #Banking Trusts: Handles all financial matters with banks and brokerage firms.

"Who is liable for the name?"

'#(a) If a person acting, or purporting to act, as a representative signs an instrument by signing either the name of the represented person or the name of the signer, the represented person is bound by the signature to the same extent the represented person would be bound if the signature were on a simple contract. If the represented person is bound, the signature of the representative is the "authorized signature of the represented person" and the represented person is liable on the instrument, whether or not identified in the instrument. #(b) If a representative signs the name of the representative to an instrument and the signature is an authorized signature of the represented person, the following rules apply: #(1) If the form of the signature shows unambiguously that the signature is made on behalf of the represented person who is identified in the instrument, the representative is not liable on the instrument.' -- 2: If not shown unambiguously, representative/signer is liable.

'Like an affidavit, an un-rebutted Birth Certificate stands in commerce. The presumption is that all agree. He who creates the liability must also provide remedy for its discharge. ...statutes apply to ‘persons’ and not to flesh and blood men and women. (At least without their informed consent.) ...if man comes to a realization of who he really is, man and not THE NAME and informs government of same, then there should be zero resistance from government to the exit of that man from the system of commerce. Everything that exists and is created by man is legally owned by government either directly or indirectly by registration in THE NAME that government holds the rights and liabilities in. -- I do not hold the rights in THE NAME. Therefore, I cannot have the liabilities either. I didn’t create it. I can only control that which I create. Government created THE NAME. Government is liable. Keep your flesh and blood body separate [from] THE NAME at all times and the presumption is rebutted.'

'In the year 1215 the first of our constitutional rights were set down on paper, it was called the Magna Carta, this was basically an oath from the crown (King or Queen) to uphold the rights of the people... Now our ancestors were not daft, they knew there could be a problem one day if the crown became unjust, or turned into some sort of dictatorship, or parliament was acting against the people, or was full of corruption, or was not allowing the crown to keep its oath. So in article 61 of the Magna Carta it was written that if this ever happened you could petition the crown to sort out the crowns problem (or parliaments if it was them), the crown had 40 days to fix it or dissolve parliament. If in the 40 days nothing was fixed the petitioner could go into rebellion against the crown and parliament lawfully until the problem was resolved. Because our constitution cannot be repealed it is still valid law. ...none of us have ever sworn an oath to be in the navy and obey admiralty law...'

"We claim common law jurisdiction before we enter this vessel. Do we have an accord?" -- Err... Parlay?? -- "MAN OVERBOARD!!!" LOL

'In this video a Freeman-On-The-Land is interviewed by a Police Constable. The video shows the Freeman separating himself from the legal fiction (Straw Man). The Net result is that the Police Constable is interviewing the Birth Certificate which represents the Straw Man/Legal Fiction. In other words he has to ask the questions of the Piece of Paper as the Human Being cannot speak for the piece of Paper. The outcome of this was the Director of Public Prosecutions decided that it wasn't "in the public interest" to prosecute in this matter. I think in reality it was more likely that they looked at the statement from the piece of paper and realised that there was no way they would ever get the Human Being into a court. Please note that this video is NOT a reflection on the Police Constable in the video—he acquitted himself and is a credit to himself. If only all Police Officers were more like him.' -- Who is liable for the name, Officer? Are you willing to be liable for the name, Officer?

'Here we see Englsih Freemen standing in court as Lay Advisors to another Freemen. This is for a Council Tax Liability Order hearing in Cwmbran Magistrates Court in South Wales, There were 14 Freemen in attendance. The court was never convened as the Freemen never handed juridiction to magistrates or the clerk by standing up when ordered to do so and the magistrates never sat down. The magistrates twice abandoned the court (the ship) and it was the Freemen who called the Police and at one point the Lay advisor can clearly be heard calling attending Police Constables to arrest the magistrates for impersonating judges. There were many criminal acts committed this day by the company personnel (Magistrates, solictors, security and the clerk) and Police complaints are under way pending prosecutions for Fraud among other things. But for the real shocker of how these people think they are above the law ... Watch until the end!' -- Haha! WHO IS LIABLE FOR THE NAME?!

'Estoppel in its broadest sense is a legal term referring to a series of legal and equitable doctrines that preclude "a person from denying or asserting anything to the contrary of that which has, in contemplation of law, been established as the truth, either by the acts of judicial or legislative officers, or by his own deed, acts, or representations, either express or implied."' -- Maxim of Law(?): Equitable estoppel applies to a contract created by fraud.

"Equitable estoppel applies to a contract created by fraud."

'...the more that people can get back to individual problem solving with or without third-party negotiators the better off civil society will be. We would argue that people have a right to enforce private copyright and patent claims IF THEY CAN. Ultimately we would suggest that people have a right to try to attach invisible strings to their IP. Who is to stop them after all? The enforcement, within the framework we are suggesting, would amount to a kind of intense market competition. Reducing, or even eliminating, the resources and involvement of the state in judicial and civil matters as much as possible, would put the onus of enforcement on the individual. Much of what passes for "justice" today might suddenly be seen as too expensive to insist upon, once it was up to the individual. For us, issues of private justice, a return to common law and even pre-common law problem solving, even regarding so-called criminal issues, is part of creating a freer and more market-oriented society.'

'When it comes to copyright, we would argue for private justice... If someone wants to sue an individual or group for "stealing" intellectual property, the person should be able to do so. But there is no need for state laws or international treaties regarding the matter. ... This would mean that only very large commercial enterprises would end up being sued. Nobody would bother with individuals downloading files, etc. This is probably as it should be. Legal injury should follow natural law. What is "yours" is mostly what you can protect: your family, your property, etc. But launch a book or article into the world and protecting it becomes a good deal more arbitrary and difficult. We would argue that successful artists can still make a living even were intellectual property rights enforced privately rather than through statist mechanisms. Sure, it would be a less efficient and merciless system. People would pilfer songs and articles and even books. But so what? They do it anyway.'

'The constitution not only binds nobody now, but it never did bind anybody. It never bound anybody, because it was never agreed to by anybody in such a manner as to make it, on general principles of law and reason, binding upon him. -- It is a general principle of law and reason, that a written instrument binds no one until he has signed it. The laws holds, and reason declares, that if a written instrument is not signed, the presumption must be that the party to be bound by it, did not choose to sign it, or to bind himself by it. And law and reason both give him until the last moment, in which to decide whether he will sign it, or not. The fact that the instrument was written for him to sign, or with the hope that he would sign it, goes for nothing. Where would be the end of fraud and litigation, if one party could bring into court a written instrument, without any signature, and claim to have it enforced, upon the ground that it was written for another man to sign?'

'Legal diversity has substantial costs [that provide] an incentive for arbitration agencies to adopt more uniform law, to be balanced against the incentive for non-uniform law provided by the differing desires of different customers. -- Each agency can threaten to refuse to agree to any arbitrator, subjecting both to the costs of occasional violence, or at least of ad hoc negotiation to avoid violence. Each knows that if no agreement is reached, they are both at risk of losing their customers to other agencies that have been more successful in negotiating agreements. -- Each individual is both a buyer and a seller of legal assent, buying from and selling to every other individual. ...the interaction is essentially one of bilateral monopoly. ...the goods they are selling are not substitutes. Because of this, a conventional analysis of a uniform good sold at a single price by all sellers and to all buyers does not work for this market.'

'If the vast majority of people—although they have different conceptions of justice—can all agree that it is wrong to use violence to settle their honest disputes, then market forces would lead to peace among the private police agencies. ...why would we expect such virtuous people, as consumers, to patronize agencies that routinely used force against weak opponents? Why wouldn’t [they] patronize defense agencies that had interlocking arbitration agreements, and submitted their legitimate disputes to reputable arbitrators? -- ...it is theoretically possible that a rogue agency could, either through intimidation or division of the spoils, take over enough banks, power companies, grocery stores, etc. that only full-scale military assault would conquer it. But the point is, from an initial position of market anarchy, these would-be rulers would have to start from scratch. In contrast, under even a limited government, the machinery of mass subjugation is ready and waiting to be seized.'

'In a stateless society, contracts with DROs are required to maintain any sort of economic life—without DRO representation, citizens are unable to get a job, hire employees, rent a car, buy a house or send their children to school. DROs would have clauses allowing you to cancel your coverage, just as insurance companies have now. Thus you would have to notify your DRO that you were dropping coverage. No problem, you’re off their list. However, DROs as a whole really need to keep track of people who have opted out of the entire DRO system, since those people have clearly signaled their intention to go rogue, to live off the grid, and commit crimes. Thus if you cancel your DRO insurance, your name goes into a database available to all DROs. If you sign up with another DRO, no problem, your name is taken out. However, if you do not sign up with any other DRO, red flags pop up all over the system. What happens then?' -- You either rejoin an existing DRO or you start your own.

Dear America, -- 'Yet again and again, throughout your speech, you repeat the idea, that this so-called constitution, which nobody ever signed, which few people ever read, which the great body of the people never saw, and about whose meaning no two persons ever agreed, is “The Supreme Law of this Land!” Sir, where did this wonderful constitution come from, that you should describe it as “The Supreme Law of this Land?” Did it originate with any body who had any rightful authority to impose it upon the people of this country? Sir, this declaration of yours, that the constitution (so-called) is “the Supreme Law of this Land,” is utterly, flagrantly, shamefully false. Justice alone is the Supreme Law of this land, and of all other lands. And it is not because your “Supreme Law of the Land,” the constitution – but because the supreme law of justice is “neglected,” “forgotten,” “disregarded,” and “disobeyed,” that our liberty is lost; or, rather, never had an existence.'

'Establishing the right to act as Peace Officers.'

How to access your communist (commonwealth) account.

#Fraud lies hid in general expressions. #It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. #Once a fraud, always a fraud. #What otherwise is good and just, if it be sought by force and fraud, becomes bad and unjust. #He is not deceived who knows himself to be deceived. #Let him who wishes to be deceived, be deceived. #The propriety of words is the safety of property.

Is there any proof I am bound by such a contract, Officer? Am I obliged to sign a social contract, Officer? Under whose authority and under what law?

Challenging the accepted history/theory that fixed weights were the standard of value for money metals and arguing instead coins were simply credit money tokens. -- 'The value of a credit depends not on the existence of any gold or silver or other property behind it, but solely on the “solvency” of the debtor, and that depends solely on whether, when the debt becomes due, he in his turn has sufficient credits on others to set off against his debts. If the debtor neither possesses nor can acquire credits which can be offset against his debts, then the possession of those debts is of no value to the creditors who own them. It is by selling, I repeat, and by selling alone—whether it be by the sale of property or the sale of the use of our talents or of our land—that we acquire the credits by which we liberate ourselves from debt, and it is by his selling power that a prudent banker estimates his client’s value as a debtor.' -- Also mention of tally sticks, aes rude and tablets.

'I ask Assange how he defines national security. ''We don't,'' he says crisply. "We're not interested in that. We're interested in justice. We are a supranational organisation. So we're not interested in national security.'' -- Did being arrested, and later on finding himself in a courtroom, push him into a completely different reality that he had never thought about - and eventually in a direction that eventually saw him start thinking along the lines of a website like Wikileaks, that would take on the world? ''That [experience] showed me how the justice system and bureaucracy worked, and did not work; what its abilities were and what its limitations were,'' he replies. ''And justice wasn't something that came out of the justice system. Justice was something that you bring to the justice system. And if you're lucky, or skilled, and you're in a country that isn't too corrupt, you can do that.'''

Amazon ASIN: B00262W3ZA

You have to charge an account or the instrument you AFV doesn't have any value. A tax has been fully assessed, it's a known value. It doesn't need to be charged. We create paper to justify the use of force (energy/charge). And so a piece of paper that has no charge associated with it cannot transfer energy because it has no force behind it. A tax, however, has been properly assessed and they have charged the strawman account for that amount. The IRS acting as debt collector for the IMF has already charged that account. So all you have to do is accept and return [the tax demand] to them. -- Gives overview of AFV your strawman birth certificate, charging it to the strawman account at the treasury, who will in turn use it to access the foreign situs trust held at the IMF that had been created by the application for live berth (see videos 1a and 1b). Now any presentment or judgement can be sent to the treasury requesting they use the situs trust to pay it.

Your acceptance/signature/credit turns the coupon/remittance/instrument/document into currency. -- A tax is fully charged. A bill is void of charges. You have to charge a bill by accepting it for value; you charge it to the party who created the bill, because once it's charged, the interest can be returned to the principal. [A charged/accepted/signed bill re-presents interest (tax) on the principal (the debt loaned to bankrupt governments) that cannot be discharged. -- Bill e.g. Criminal Justice Bill. Cybersecurity Bill. -- Bills signed/accepted/charged into acts (fictions) of 'law' -- 'law' enforcement = debt collection [?]]

I owe no debt to JOHN SMITH. Said account having been adjusted in public policy to zero balance. There is no evidence to the contrary. I do not believe any evidence exists. The record is made and uncompromised. I therefore deny being subject to the jurisdiction of the UNITED STATES (etc) or any UNITED STATES vessels (etc) -- In the public, you have to expressly waive benefit/privilege -- you have to say so and do so. -- Whoever creates the liability must bring the remedy. -- Blue ink: When you sign something, you add credibility to it. -- Accepted For Value: Anyone who sends a bill, but doesn't also send a cheque to pay the bill, has created a liability in the public (in bankruptcy) without providing remedy. -- A coupon/remittance is a cheque. Accept it as valuable: write across it: "Accepted for value. Exempt from levy." Provide exemption ID number (your SIN/social insurance number). "Deposit to the treasury and charge to [your PERSON's] account." Sign and date. Send to the treasury.

When they ask if you understand your rights, they're trying to get you to waive your rights, not secure them to yourself. "I waive none of my rights." -- As a citizen (of the ship), you are required to inform on yourself. If you are a citizen you cannot refuse to identify yourself. You have to overcome the presumption that you are a citizen and have accepted and are using citizen benefit/privileges. "I waive the benefits and privileges of citizenship." -- ["What's YOUR name? What makes you think I have a name? Am I obliged to have a name? Do you have any evidence that I am a citizen?"] -- Anytime you give your name, you are contracting with someone, you have given them a lien against your property. -- You can't be held in contempt of court if you're only asking questions. Ask for the names of all the parties in court. -- Reads: 'Affidavit of Status regarding Citizenship' ... I, a stranger to the public trust, hereby waive the breach of contract commited by the united States... [Hmm]

If you don't want the benefit/privilege, waive it. "I waive the payment of the fine. I waive the sentence of a term in prison." You don't have to absolve your sin/debt, so just waive the court's offers. Nobody can force you to accept a benefit/privilege. Benefits and privileges are voluntary. If they are forced, it's involuntary servitude.

The person (JOHN SMITH) vs the GOV'T with the man (John Smith) as third party to the person with real interest. Put an indemnity bond (birth cert.) into the court to protect the judge and so protect the public. John Smith has a proprietary right to JOHN SMITH. John Smith is the only real party and interest acting as contributing beneficiary who has put any value into JOHN SMITH. John Smith is the only legitimate party to any equity attached to JOHN SMITH (enc. UCC-1 Financing Statement. John Smith is entitled to any interpleative funds relating to JOHN SMITH. Therefore, Respondant denies that the Claimant has any proprietary right to JOHN SMITH. Respondant denies the Claimant has put any value into JOHN SMITH. Notwithstanding any assumed contracts [...] the Claimant is in breach of any such alleged contract for failure of consideration. Claimant is barred from any collection of any alleged debt from JOHN SMITH or related to JOHN SMITH, the Claimant having no claim in fact.

Social Security Insurance is limited liability insurance provided by the government. When you work in commerce [as a common law man?], you work with full liability, man-to-man. Because we're in bankruptcy, because you use the 'king's' current-sea, the king will always assert his right in equity as the third party. To stop this, deny the assumption that you use the currency with a negative averment. File a deposition, depose yourself, remove yourself from the civil government. Notify the other party and write out the questions (and answers) for the notary/attorney to ask you, leaving the other party (an Attorney) with no opportunity for rebuttal other than a first-hand witness. [You can do this at any time with an Affidavit or Statutory Declaration under the Statutory Declarations Act 1835?] That's not my signature. What number didn't you hear? Waive both sides of the court benefits: claim and counter-claim. Get the paperwork into the Judge's evidence file.

First in time/first in line, establishes lien position. The UCC-1 is just the notice that the lien exists. You need to have the lien. -- Appearing in a corporate court... You do not have to be surety, you can appear by special, limited appearance: "I, appearing as WINSTON SHROUT..." When you sign something, you want to limit your signature: 'By: <Winston Shrout> (Agent)' – a conditional signature. 'Winston Shrout, Real Party and Interest.' It is the custom in admiralty that a man can sue in his real name – you don't *have* to use a strawman. -- Third-party, counter-claim countermeasures... You can always name the government as the third-party Defendent because they are Constitutor for all the citizen's debts. The principle: 'however does business with my Debtor becomes my Debtor', means you can put anyone who is a common stock owner of the gov't as a third-party Defendent. All government vessels operate in limited liability insurance, all profit in commerce comes from insurance fraud.

The purpose of summonsing you (your person) to court is anything in admiralty jurisdiction, they went a sued a vessel knowing that owner will eventually show up and ask why their vessel has been held in port. They arrest the vessel using a bill of exchange (negotiable instrument) as the arrest warrant. They hold the vessel in port so that it can't do commerce. When the owner shows up at court and proves they are the surety for vessel [with their bond?], the ownder becomes the surety for the negotiable instrument and the court orders the port to release the vessel back to sea. On the UCC-1 financing statement... Commerce is all about lien - what lien position are you in? Properly executed, you can put yourself into first lien position.

On Bills of Exchange (debt notes) as the admiralty replacement for asset money. Civil Law/Statutes is all merchant law. A complaint that is put into court is a negotiable instrument, it's a bill of exchange. Courts only deal in debt, the money damage of a crime. The jury helps the Judge determine how much the Defendant will pay for the crime. Maker/Drawer (the Attorney of the BAR, operating on the letter of marque, making a gamble/wager on the prize of the negotiable instrument on the open sea), Drawee (the party who is named as the Defendant (the Person)), Payor (indeterminate until the wager pays off where a party is assigned to be surety, else the Attorney gets stuck with the bill), Payee (the State, the holder and issuer of the Attorney's bond). A Defendant's plea of 'not guilty' is a counter claim against the Plaintiff that requires a bond. No bond, no standing. And if you've gone into court with an Attorney who is already bonded, the State will be the beneficiary if you win.

On the Garden of Eden as the world of Common Law... God sent Adam and Eve out of the garden into maritime juristidiction for disobeying his commandment having been tricked by the Serpent. They were put into a reorganisation bankruptcy (SIN = DEBT). Because there's no mercy in common law, God had to send them out into a changed system of law: admirality. Had he not, he would have had to destroy them. -- Because Jesus' blood was taken early, his convenant provided for a pre-paid system. DEBT/SIN/the bite of the Serpent could set-off (not discharged and thus put off into the future) via the pre-payment provided for people if only they would "look up" and accept their remedy via their bond certificate.

'The story of how everyone has a strawman created for them at birth and how it is used to collect revenue for your government.' -- http://infomaticfilms.com

'Common Law is codified cultural and moral experience, socially accepted and applied on a case by case basis by a private/communal judiciary of some sort. -- Common Law: #resolution-based with no concept of "debt to society" #social canon of "law" codified by tradition #punishments customized to crime by simple resolution techniques #private resolution whenever possible #simple private or communal courts when necessary (as in early Britain) #precedent observed but informally and as suitable #shame based punishments preferred to incarceration #no obvious distinction between civil and criminal law -- Modern Western Law #control by the state #emphasis on "debt to society" (society remains undefined?) [Law Society] #private prison industry complex benefits from incarceration-intensive punishments #lavish celebration of precedent #elaborate appeals system #no ability to seek private redress #adversarial model with middle man (attorney) emphasized #distinction between civil and criminal law'

'Under the common law, two parties to a dispute are required to communicate the grievance and attempt to settle privately before going public with the dispute. If private settlement cannot be made, then they agree to abide by the decision of the arbiters that they both choose. At that agreement, peace is made, though the underlying grievance has not yet been justified until trial. Peace is accomplished swiftly, and the parties can go back to both productivity and leisure. Under an adversarial system, the parties are discouraged from communicating directly, but do so through a third party who has an interest in keeping the conflict alive, since only in litigation can the attorney benefit. Civil law is designed to foment and perpetuate conflict for the purpose of controlling people and obtaining their wealth (energy). For that reason the power elite have obscured every attempt of the people to utilize principles of law, and to teach those principles to others.'

'The sensible focus of common law involves private, marketplace justice and allows aggrieved parties to solve both civil and criminal offenses on their own using the standards of community morality. This sort of justice is not based on precedent but on common sense and tends to limit quarrels and even violence. Precedent justice, combined with the West's modern-day prison-industrial complex, will inevitably give rise to a web of complex criminal and civil "laws" that will continually expand over time. Unlike common law, the precedent-based legal system can only multiply its "laws" until almost everything can be considered a prosecutable action. The end result is an oppressive and impossibly complex system good for intimidation and control. -- As the current monetary system continues its unrolling collapse, we expect the worst excesses of the current statist judiciary to begin to retreat as well.'

'Common law systems of justice thrive when the state is less than omnipresent and when private morality and religion [*sigh*] have expanded into the gap left by the diminishment of the authoritarian state. ...such systems tend to be "shame-based" rather than punitive in terms of Western approaches. Rather than vast periods of incarceration, the convicted individual is subject to punishments that may be psychologically painful, yet far less expensive and disruptive. ...in terms of competitive justice that is privately based and arises to solve problems cleanly and efficiently, the West's vast law libraries and universities are manifestations of the larger regulatory democracies that have taken hold in the 20th century. These democracies, in turn, are an outgrowth of mercantilist central banking and fiat money. Only societies with huge amount of paper money to fling about can afford the kinds of litigious, statist and authoritarian justice system that is prevalent today.'

'This is the updated version of the same video about how I responded to a recent court summons. You can do this to just about each & every court summons you may receive. It's important to always respond in writing. Also, it's recommended for you to go to a notary public to have your written response documented and notarized for proof.' -- Thank you for your notice. I decline your invitation to attend your court/bank and I decline your offer of contract to represent a corporation so as to assist you with your bankruptcy book-keeping. I remain in honour and good standing under law.

Comment: Pat Fields: '@George Sign Cite: "I can never quite get my head around the ownership of land." -- Title in anything is a duality ... At Law and In Equity. These are separable aspects and must be understood to clearly understand the paramount evil in artificial 'money' within the Common Law system. Plantation Scrip ["money"] entitles possession At Law, but since it is purely credit, it can not acquire title In Equity (beneficial ownership). Since government assumes authority of [Surety], it defends legal possession 'unless a superior title can be presented at bar'. That conversely authorizes it to defend the beneficial rights of Holders In Equity ... which it does through taxation on the land.'

'Lying and collusion have become so systemic that every decision made drives us towards a dangerously wrong result. These decisions are leading us down the path to breakdown collapse. We want to turn the tide, so how do we effect change.' -- You withdraw 'moral' support for government and every other form of organized violence – NOW – before the suicidal parasites fully consume their hosts.

'Lawyer Capitalism = LAWCAP. LAWCAP's "capitalism" is paradoxically the most highly socialized organization in all history.'

'An indepth discussion into who you really are.' -- All aboard the citizen ship!

DB: 'In free-market common law, the aggrieved party and putative offender might both pay a judge to render a verdict. The judge, who did this for a living, would have every incentive to present a fair verdict because such verdicts would add luster to his or her reputation and generate additional business. Additionally, common law has the added advantage that not everyone would take advantage of it, and that some would seek to settle grievances on their own. This would result in a very polite society (and has in the past) as no one would want to offend anyone else. Once upon a time, "manners" were far more elaborate and prevalent for a reason. There is also an issue of honor and morality. In communal societies, where power has devolved to local levels, religion [?] can often play an important role in how society is organized and how law is administered. Such societies are often shame-based, or have been in the past, and the prospect of shaming may act as a behavior modifier...'

'TOP SECRET BANKER'S MANUAL - FOR BANKERS ONLY - This manual is designed for Bank Presidents and Vice Presidents only. *Do not allow lower level bank employees to review.* -- (This manual is for educational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice.)' -- More info: http://www.bankdebt.org / http://www.bankdebt.org/ts2002.mp3

Draft reply/rant to a bank explaining the loan/credit card fraud: '...providing you had actually 'lent' this money from your own funds and had not taken my cheque [signed loan/credit application] cashed it with the treasury who took the money from my [treasury] account gave it back to you and you then gave it back to me as an alleged loan and asked for the principal back and charged enormous amounts of interest on it to boot...'

Comment: DB: Bruce -- 'Get kidnaped on the street by jack booted thugs in uniform carrying a badge. They bring you into an executive branch administrative court before someone called a judge, who is merely a clerk for the police agency who kidnaped you. They pretend the whole thing is judicial, but it isn't. Then they ask you questions, like, 'What's your name? or 'Are you So and So? Let me ask you this, 'If whoever brought me here can't testify to who I am and why he brought me here, then by what authority do you hold me and ask me questions? If asked, 'What's your name? my response is, 'What makes you think I have a name? You wouldn't believe how fast the hands come off from me. The word 'name comes from the Latin word 'Nome which means 'debtor. The question, 'What's your name? actually is the question, 'Do you recognize me as the creditor so that I can determine how much money I can extract from you today? There is no honesty in government. There is no law in the courts.'