|
Response #2: (of the Judge to question #2)
"I am sorry. I am not here to advise you on the law. If you want answers to such questions, I advise you to contact a licensed attorney."
YOU: "But, your honor, the Constitution requires this Court to tell me the nature of this Criminal Action pending against me. How can I
properly defend myself, which I am lawfully entitled to do, if I am not told the type of Jurisdiction the case is to be heard under?
THE JUDGE: "I told you before, if you want answers to legal questions of this nature I advise you to secure the services of a licensed attorney."
YOU: "Thank you, your honor, I would like the record of this case to show that this court has refused my request made, under the authority of
the Sixth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, to be informed of the 'nature' of the jurisdiction by which this Criminal Action is to be tried, and would like the record to show that the Criminal Action pending against (your name) is a Criminal Action under a secret jurisdiction known only to licensed attorneys making it impossible for one to defend himself in
Propria Persona."
Response #3: (of the Judge to question #2)
THE JUDGE: "This case is to be tried under Statutory Jurisdiction."
YOU: "Thank you, your honor. I am not acquainted with the Court rules for such a Jurisdiction. I will, however, accept such Jurisdiction
if this Court, prior to trial date, will provide me with, or tell me where I can find a book containing the Rules of Criminal Procedure for Statutory
Jurisdiction."
Since there are no such rules published, the Judge will advise you to obtain the services of a licensed attorney. At that point, speak into the Court Record as listed in Response #2 that the Court intends to conduct a Criminal Action against you under a secret jurisdiction known only to
licensed attorneys.
Response #4: (of the Judge to question #2)
THE JUDGE: "This case will be tried under an Admiralty Jurisdiction."
YOU: "Thank you, your honor, but, as you know, an Admiralty Jurisdiction depends upon a valid international contract in dispute. I am not aware of having entered into any such contract and so I deny that any such contract exists. Will you have this prosecuting attorney prove into the record of this case that a valid international contract exists as a
fact of law, and that I am a party to said contract, and that my being a party to said contract obligates me to obey this State Statute #_____" etc.
Most prosecuting attorneys would be at a loss to offer such proof. This takes the problem off the Judge's back, and places it on the back of the prosecuting attorney (where it belongs!). Failure of proof of Admiralty Jurisdiction on his part is ground to have his action dismissed by the Court.
Should you run into a learned prosecuting attorney, who would dare to expose the legalese by which the order of power in the United States has been turned upside down, allow him to proceed with his proof, which will be along this fashion:
"Your Honor, in 1933 the American People, being sovereigns in this country, voted Franklin D. Roosevelt into the position as their spokesman
and president. In order to accomplish the task desired of him, Mr. Roosevelt had to spend more money than the sovereign citizens were willing
to pay in taxes. This made it necessary for the people's representative to borrow bank credit from the International Banking Houses. It was written
into that loan contract that the loans of bank credit, in addition to the interest (usury) upon them were to be repaid in gold coin. By the year 1938 the International Banking Houses had extended their credit to the United States in excess of the gold coin, available for repayment of same, thus the former sovereign citizens of the Nation, through Mr. Roosevelt their representative, could no longer meet their contract obligations to pay their international debts in gold coin, and they lost their sovereign
status under the Common Law, because of this default on the debt to the International banking houses, and the Bar Associations accomodated the
situation by blending "law" with "equity" in 1938 in such a way as not to
alarm the American citizens over their newly acquired servile status. As every licensed bar attorney knows, the rules of equity are quite different from the rules of law. American equity compels performance upon the letter of a contract obligation, or in the interest of the creditor in case of financial default, but it allows a jury trial for controversy above $20.00,
and it outlaws debtors prisons. However, the equity jurisdiction of International default on debt is tried in Admiralty Courts, which do not
recognize any of the constitutional protections of American Equity Courts, since they are international. A Jury in an Admiralty Court is only advisory to the Chancellor (called Judge) who may rule contrary to a jury verdict if he wishes. Also Admiralty Courts impose Criminal penalty on those who fail to perform. The legislative bodies in America today, no
longer pass Public "law" statutes, pursuant to the limitations upon such statutes by National and State Constitutions, but rather our legislative
bodies in America are now the Sovereign, over the Courts and Executive officers, as well as over all of the so-called citizens, and their function is to pass Public "policy" statutes in the interest of the nation's creditors, which civil statutes contain Criminal penalties under an Admiralty Jurisdiction. In this particular Public Policy Statute requiring
the fastening of seat belts, the defendant is charged with a Criminal Action for his failure to perform within a public policy statute written in
the interest of the Nations' Creditors, who feel they want this man protected from his own careless behavior because dead men pay no taxes, and the nations' Creditors need this man's labor to help pay the International debt, which is in default. This Court has an Admiralty Jurisdiction over the person of this defendant in this Criminal Action, because he failed to perform according to the contract for the repayment of the nation's debt."
Your answer to the above is to challenge the validity of a contract to which you were not a direct party and you inform the Court that the
validity of the international Contract, lupon which this case rests, mustbe settled before the trial on issues may begin.
* * * * * * Howard L. Freeman, an avid student of law and sovereignty
for more than 30 years, is a retired civil engineer. He lives in Lusk,
Wyoming.
O U T L I N E
Note: this outline of Mr. Freeman's work is not complete. I got
interrupted and never finished it. Read the text carefully. Maybe you can
finish it.
IS ACTION CIVIL OR CRIMINAL?
CRIMINAL
IS CRIMINAL JURISDICTION COMMON LAW OR ADMIRALTY?
COMMON LAW
DISMISS FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
THERE IS NO INJURED PARTY
ADMIRALTY
HAVE ATTORNEY PROVE INTO RECORD
VALID INT'L CONTRACT EXISTS
YOU ARE PARTY TO CONTRACT
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO THE STATE
STATUTORY JURISDICTION
SEE CIVIL
GET A LICENSED ATTORNEY
SEE CIVIL
CIVIL
IS STATE A PARTY? SUPREME COURT HAS JURISDICTION
STATUTORY JURISDICTION
WHAT ARE COURT RULES FOR THIS JURISDICTION?
(THEY DON'T EXIST, but if you ask
this question, the judge might just
refer you to the court rules of
another jurisdiction.)
GET A LICENSED ATTORNEY
(SEE NEXT)
GET A LICENSED ATTORNEY
INSIST UPON BEING INFORMED OF NATURE OF THIS CRIMINAL ACTION.
LET THE RECORD SHOW SECRET JURISDICTION
|