Judicial DECEPTION!! 



2-1. Admiralty Law, Common law and the Sovereign - HERE


2-2. Legal Brief to Support a Demand for Dismissal of Charges of "Driving without a License". - HERE

Arrest Report - definition

2-3. An arrest report is a legal document which provides the details of an arrest. People also sometimes use the term “arrest report” to refer to an arrest log, a documentation of all arrests which occurred within a set time period ... Arrest reports include a great deal of information. The name of the law enforcement agent or agents involved is listed, along with the agency or agencies the agent or agents work for. In addition, the arrest report provides information about the date and time of the arrest, the charges, and the scheduled court date, if one is available. It may also include notes and observations from the arresting officer.  More HERE


2-4. A Paradox for any Court - HERE

2-5. Are You a Corporation Member? - HERE



2-6. The Official State Office Known as "PERSON" - "You become a STATE created statutory "person" by taking up residency with the STATE and stepping into the office of "person." You must hold an "office" within the STATE government in order for that STATE government to regulate and control you. First comes the legislatively created office, then comes their control. If you do not have an office in STATE government, the legislature's control over you would also be prohibited by the Declaration of Rights section, usually found to be either Section I or II, of the STATE Constitution. The most common office held in a STATE is therefore the office known as "person." Your STATE legislature created this office as a way to control people. It is an office most people occupy without even knowing that they are doing so. The legislature cannot lawfully control you because you are a flesh and blood human being. God alone created you and by Right of Creation, He alone can control you. It is the nature of Law, that what One creates, One controls. This natural Law is the force that binds a creature to its creator. God created us and we are, therefore, subject to His Laws, whether or not we acknowledge Him as our Creator. The way the STATE gets around God's Law and thereby controls the People is by creating only an office, and not a real human. This office is titled as "person" and then the legislature claims that you are filling that office. Legislators erroneously now think that they can make laws that also control men. They create entire bodies of laws - motor vehicle code, building code, compulsory education laws, and so on ad nauseum. They still cannot control men or women, but they can now control the office they created. And look who is sitting in that office -- YOU."  More HERE

Bastiat, Frederic

2-7. The Law - HERE


2-8. Modern "Commercial Law" is based on Ancient Babylonian Codes - HERE

Birth Certificate

2-9.  Birth Certificate Bond, The - HERE

2-10. Birth Certificate Truth - HERE 

Parens Patriae - Government as Parent - by Joyce Rosenwald - In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act was passed creating birth "registration" or what we now know as the "birth certificate." It was known as the "Maternity Act" and was sold to the American people as a law that would reduce maternal and infant mortality, protect the health of mothers and infants, and for other purposes ...... Prior to 1921 the records of births and names of children were entered into family Bibles, as were the records of marriages and deaths. These records were readily accepted by both the family and the law as "official" records. Since 1921 the American people have been registering the births and names of their children with the government of the state in which they are born, even though there is no federal law requiring it ...... In 1933, bankruptcy was covertly declared by President Roosevelt. The governors of the then 48 States pledged the "full faith and credit" of their states, including the citizenry, as collateral for loans of credit from the Federal Reserve system ...... This author believes that the federal government draws its de facto jurisdiction for these actions from the "Doctrine of Parens Patriae." Parens Patriae means literally, "parent of the country." ...... With the birth registration established, the federal government, under the doctrine of Parens Patriae, had the mechanism to take over all the assets of the American people and put them into debt into perpetuity ...... Parents, without full disclosure under law, make application for a "birth certificate," thereby making the child a citizen of the corporate government known as the United States. The government then turns the new citizen into a corporation, a legal fiction, under the laws of the state. The birth information is collected by the state and is then turned over to the U.S. Department of Commerce. The corporation is then placed into a "trust", known as a "Cestui Que Trust" ...... The government becomes the Trustee, while the child becomes the beneficiary of his own trust. Legal title to everything the child will ever own is now vested in the federal government.  More HERE

Bribery - definition

2-12.  What is Bribery? [Includes donations to police "charities" to get special favours] - Bribery involves offering or accepting something of value in a situation where the person who accepts the bribe is expected to perform a service which goes beyond his or her normal job description. For example, a motorist being ticketed for parking in the wrong place might offer a bribe to the police officer to ask him or her to tear up the ticket. In many regions of the world, bribery is considered a crime, and it can be severely punished. In other areas, bribery is more socially acceptable, which can place a heavy burden on those in the lower ranks of society, as they cannot afford to bribe officials in the style to which they are accustomed. More HERE


2-13. Confirmatio Cartarum, Granted by Edward I, November 5, 1297 - HERE

British Constitution Group

2-14.  Declaration By The British Constitution Group - We, the British People have a right to govern ourselves. That right has been subjugated as a consequence of acts of treason having been committed by the collective political establishment, aided and abetted by corrupt segments of the judiciary, the police, the Church and the civil service.  Furthermore, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, whose position has been usurped by a corrupt House of Commons and who has been forced into the destruction of her Kingdom and the breaking of her coronation oath, no longer governs us in accordance with our laws and customs, as was the situation when she was elected by the people as our Sovereign and our Head of State.  Why Her Majesty has failed in her duty is not for us to judge at this point in time - Her Majesty has however been made aware of the situation and is now duty bound to make amends.  A political elite has for some time manipulated the electoral system to deprive the people of true democratic representation by constructing a party political system that has allowed, indeed encouraged, acts of treason to have been committed.  As a direct consequence of the betrayal of the British people by the collective political establishment, and others, the British Constitution Group is calling for Lawful Rebellion, as is our right under article 61 Magna Carta 1215.  More HERE

2-15.  Introduction - The British Constitution - Until recently, the Ministry of Justice had this to say about the Constitution - The British Constitution is not, as it is in many countries, a ‘written constitution’. It is not codified in a single document but is made up of a complex web of statutes, conventions, and a corpus of common and other law. It is also informed by an interweaving of history and more modern democratic principles. The legal premise of the United Kingdom constitution – that the UK parliament is sovereign – is a fundamental part of our constitutional arrangements. This means that an Act of Parliament must be obeyed by the courts, that later acts prevail over earlier ones, and that the rules made by external bodies cannot override Acts of Parliament.  The Bill of Rights 1689 and Magna Carta are important elements of our constitution. Magna Carta is Primary legislation and has the same status as any other legislation and is not immune from repeal or amendment. The same applies to the Bill of Rights which was an ordinary Act of Parliament passed in the ordinary way. This statement is untrue - it is a political interpretation, with a political agenda. It is designed to nullify our Constitution and the protections it provides.  The first line, for example, states that the British Constitution is "unwritten." This is untrue, often repeated and unqualified in the press. It is strange that the Ministry of Justice would make such a statement, since the British Constitution is the basis for many of the world's constitutions, including those of the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India.  It is worth quoting U.S. President John Adams here, because he makes a few points to which we should pay close attention. Discussing the British Parliament and Constitution, he wrote:  If the people are not equitably represented in the house of commons, this is a departure in practice from the theory. — If the lords return members of the house of commons, this is an additional disturbance of the balance: whether the crown and the people in such a case will not see the necessity of uniting in a remedy, are questions beyond my pretensions: I only contend that the English constitution is, in theory, the most stupendous fabrick of human invention, both for the adjustment of the balance, and the prevention of its vibrations; and that the Americans ought to be applauded instead of censured, for imitating it, as far as they have. Not the formation of languages, not the whole art of navigation and ship building, does more honour to the human understanding than this system of government.  So what is this Constitution that the Ministry of Justice denies, and yet was held in high regard by one of the authors of the American constitution? Why would they wish to brush it under the carpet? Could it be that it has been treasonously and unlawfully undermined?  More HERE

2-16.  Common Law was established by Alfred the Great, who reigned from 871-899AD. He compiled the laws and customs of the nation into the "Liber Judicialis," based on the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. Alfred's son, Edward, declared  "To all who are charged with the administration of public affairs I give the express command that they show themselves in all things to be just judges precisely as in the Liber Judicialis it is written; nor shall any of them fear to declare the common law freely and courageously."  In contradiction to the Common Law, the Civil Law of Rome prevailed in continental Europe. When William the Conqueror invaded in 1066, he brought with him jurists and clerics steeped in the principles of Roman civil law. Our ancient laws and customs withstood the shock, and remained without any serious amendment. Common Law includes the Charter of Liberties, which makes the Monarch subject to the law, the 1102 Synod of Westminster, which abolished slavery in England, the 1627 Petition of Right, which granted the right to criticise the government without fear of arrest, as well as Magna Carta and the Declaration of Right. Common Law defends property rights and rights to self defence.  Many of our greatest constitutional documents are Common Law documents. These are not Acts of Parliament. Their principles cannot be repealed by Parliament, and when our Monarch swore to uphold the "laws and customs" of the people of the United Kingdom at her Coronation, those "laws and customs" include Common Law.  More HERE

2-17.  The Coronation Oath - is the freely taken and mutual covenant between the Monarch and the People of Britain. During the Coronation ceremony, the People effectively elect the Monarch, and in return, the Monarch swears the Coronation Oath. Here is the Oath Elizabeth II swore ... "Archbishop: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs? ... Queen: I solemnly promise so to do. ... Archbishop: Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements? ... Queen: I will." ... Six British Monarchs have been deposed in one form or another, having been deselected for their failure to maintain the rights and liberties of the People. They were Ethelred, Richard II, Henry VI, Charles I (executed), James II and Edward VIII. ... We have a tripartite government in this country. Parliament, the Judiciary and the Monarchy are intended to provide protections and limits upon each other. One of those limiting powers is Royal Assent. Since Queen Anne. no British Monarch has withheld Royal Assent from an Act of Parliament. Nevertheless it remains there as the exclusive authority of the Monarch, to be used when necessary on behalf of the People. As such, several of our Sovereigns since Anne, especially the present Queen, have broken their Coronation Oath by refusing to withhold Royal Assent from unconstitutional statute. While Government is tripartite, we the People must recognise our role in demanding our good governance. Remember what John Adams said? ... "... whether the crown and the people in such a case will not see the necessity of uniting in a remedy." ... If we are unhappy with the manner in which we are governed, we have no right to a remedy until we are willing to act in our own defence. We must demand that our Monarch lives by the oath she took. If she does not, we must seek redress elsewhere.  More HERE

2-18.  Declaration of Right - The Petition of Right at the beginning of the 17th century, and the Declaration of Right and Bill of Rights at the end, embody a century long fight to constrain the power of Government. At that time it was the Monarch who desired a divine right. Today it is our Parliamentarians. The Petition of Right and Declaration of Right are Common Law contracts between the People and the Crown. The Bill of Rights is a statue law enactment of the Declaration of Right.  The Declaration of Right was imposed upon William and Mary as a condition of their assuming the Crown - in other words, they would only be elected by the People if they accepted its terms. The Declaration of Right, and the Bill of Rights, clearly state that - no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So it can clearly be seen that every EU treaty imposed upon us by Parliament, is unconstitutional. Here is the evidence that our present Monarch has indeed broken her Coronation Oath, by giving Royal Assent to these treaties. Other ..........constitutional rights given by these contracts - The right to bear arms - The right to petition the Sovereign - Free men cannot be imprisoned without cause - The Government cannot arrest any man because he disagrees with the Government’s policies - Habeas corpus is not to be denied - No person will be compelled to make loans to the King, and there will be no tax without the approval of Parliament - Soldiers and sailors will not be billeted on civilians - Government will not impose martial law during peacetime - The right to bear arms gives every person the right to self defence using reasonable force, including deadly force if appropriate. Using tragic events as an excuse to remove that right has historically been the work of governments with good reason to fear their people - governments intent on some kind of future totalitarian control of their populations.  More HERE


2-19.  "It's about removing consent to be governed by statutes and acts, not about removing consent to be a good person.  EVERYONE should avoid causing harm or loss to anyone regardless of whether they have removed their consent to be governed by statutes and acts (contracts) or not. This is a very basic fact of life that all should adhere to. Those that do cause harm or loss to others should be held accountable by the community."
I hope that's a simple enough way to explain it. There is nothing to fear from people removing their consent to be governed by statutes and acts, they are still accountable for their actions.

2-20.  My Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) Reply Letter - NOTICE OF DISCHARGE OF OUTSTANDING PENALTY NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION - One of you revenue agents appears to have left a “PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE (PCN)” on a private conveyance that I, a human being with flesh and blood, own. The PCN appears to have been served upon the private conveyance commonly known as [REG NUMBER], which for your information is not a human being and not in a position to contract or pay such a request.  More HERE

2-21.  The Ministry of Justice has NO evidence of authority. It's all in our heads. The sooner we stop believing them when they say they are in charge (assuming we've caused no harm or loss) the sooner we will be free.  More HERE

2-22.  Re: MP Agrees Consent Can Be Revoked - It seems to be all split up.
i] It's okay to REVOKE CONSENT (no mention of whether statutes still apply) i.e. he is neither confirming nor denying if the Government will honour your request.
ii] He is saying it's okay to opt out of the game of 'choosing someone to re-present you'
iii] People who choose not to pay tax is "different". The MP doesn't say specifically different to what, but the assumption is not paying taxes for services you use is different to removing consent to be governed. This would therefore lead me to believe its okay to remove consent to be governed if you didn't use the various services provided by Government.
iv] The assumption is that we ALL USE national and local services (it doesn't specify if these are Government services or private services). It is written as if it were a statement of fact and that is impossible to not use these services. "Refusing to pay such taxes is clearly wrong." Wrong? Not illegal? Not immoral? Not unlawful?
So to wrap up this MP says it's not about being governed, it's about paying your way. Cool.
The MP says it's okay to remove your consent to be governed (the assumption is that statutes would no longer apply, only common laws*) If you do so you will have no input into who your local MP is, and no input into who is in charge of spending taxes. If you remove consent to be governed then you should avoid using any services which are funded by tax otherwise you have committed a wrong.
Sound fair?
I would add to that, if you wish to use the services which are paid for by tax, then it would be fair to offer a fair payment for these services
(*common laws - do not cause harm or loss. Do all you have agreed to do).

Bruno, Giordano

2-23.  "Like the character of Will Kane, Liberty Movement proponents also listen to their inner voice. They understand that there are greater concerns at stake than their own safety. That there are ideals under threat of extinction. That the future stands at the edge of a knife. If we don’t do what is right, then who will? All other concerns are either secondary, or irrelevant. When has leaving the problem for others to deal with ever led to anything good? History is filled with examples of cowards who chose to pass the buck rather than take responsibility, letting the rest of the world rot while they defer the pain until tomorrow. Such an act requires a considerable deficiency of moral character. The Liberty Movement is different. Under no circumstances, no matter how foreboding, do we ever compromise our conscience."  More HERE

Bryer, Marvin

2-24.  Book - Disqualify Your Judge -
"The internet is certainly being managed by the NWO more and more. One of the most important exposes on the Legal System was by Marvin Bryer. He was a computer programmer and in that sense 'insider' with the slush funds of the Judges and Courts. There is still some information out there under his name. But all sites that carried books or video of seminars seem to either be rebranded or when you go to order they just dead end. He had a book "Disqualify Your Judge" that is nowhere to be found. This is what is known as a 'high profile target'. His information was so significant as an insight into the entire Criminal Justice Scam that they seem to have gone to great lengths to bury the information. Anyone finding the book or video with a working order  form, let me know."  ReelView 


2-25.  Founding Principles -  "That  people in a community must take a leadership role in teaching themselves, their children and their neighbours about their Rights, Freedoms, and Liberties and that they should not just leave it up to the legal system itself to ensure that their rights and freedoms are protected." ... "That money can be a corrupting factor and that the court system needs to actively look at its policies and correct, as much as possible, anything that would allow money factors to influence the execution of justice."  More HERE



2-26.  Abilities Needed to be a Pro se Litigant - HERE

homepage-one,  homepage-two,  homepage-threehomepage-four, homepage-five,

homepage-seven,  homepage-eight,  homepage-nine,  homepage-ten,

homepage-eleven,  homepage-twelve,

Freeman-on-the-Land Robert-Arthur of the Menard Family,

Tactikal Guy



Unrelated, but also see Moving-World DECEPTION!! - HERE