* This morning he broadcast (to other suitors):
Quote:
The BASIS For The STATE's Crazy Determination Against Roger .... Is NOT Their Reasoning!
"Jan. 17th 1999 "Sir. are you the defendant?" something like that or "What's your name? Okay? Elvick does the perfect mirror image right back to the judge and took over.
------
He says. "Well sir, what is your name? Question number 1. Because Elvick understands the Judge is trying to write an agreement; the first thing you need in
an agreement is the name of the second party. Okay?
So the first thing you do is get the name so the record is set there. So Elvick says: "Well what is your name?" and then the issue is (can't decipher) Elvicks also going on this principle of agreements -- the third type -- if somebody fails to respond in protest, you have in essence got a default agreement with them. So the first thing he gets is the name. Now if the judge won't give his name, then Elvick goes ahead anyway with question number two because if somebody fails to respond or is standing mute it literally means your in control and they're waving their rights.
Question number 2: "Do you have a claim against me?" Now if the judge comes back and says anything then you've got to adapt to what's going on.. But basically the judge is never going to admit that he has a claim because then he becomes the prosecuting party and he doesn't want to be in that position. So he'll either stand mute or he will decline to answer the question or most likely he may come back and say "well this doesn't involve me"... or he's going to try to do a demur to
what's going on.
Audience question: "At that point could you not now say "Please let the record reflect that the judge has no claim against me?" (Editor -- NO!!!)
Yes and No. Here's part of the problem. They're in a record court and that's one thing I wanted to research because we usually want to make sure that records reflect certain things. But this issue from Elvick is that theirs is a record statutory, legislative court. Your's is a non-record court because what this guy is doing is common law proceeding. And i'll talk about what Elvick's doing in a minute. So he isn't (in) a court of record per se. Common Law is not necessarily a court of record; it just does what it does under the authority of law. So he doesn't want to establish - quote - unquote -- like a record of proceedings. He is doing the damn thing, he ain't talking about doing it.
So the second issue is: "Do you have a claim against me?" Getting no response or a non-responsive response, he goes on to question number 3. "Do you know anyone who does have a claim against me?" Now, he didn't say any "person" or "anybody that" -- it's anyone "who" has a claim against me. He is talking about a non-fiction, living human. Which is the difference between common law and the statutory world. In the statutory world, they're dealing entirely with fictions and corporate entities. So what he's doing is he's living and breathing the real world here. he's not pleading into a fiction or a legislative venue which is the major legislative premise. Okay? Anyone who has a claim against me. Now if he gets a "No" answer or a non-responsive answer then he goes on.
1st question: "What is your name?" - 2nd question "Do you have a claim against me?" -
Third question - "Do you know anyone who does have a claim against me?" -
NOW 4th position is a statement:
"I request the order of the court be released unto me immediately."
Now, let me explain what "order" is.
These people are all acting under the major premise of a legislative venue. They MUST have delegation of orders that give them any authority to do anything they're doing. And obviously, once he's gone through the first 3 questions: The name, the claim, know anyone who has a claim. If there's a non-response then nobody has come forward with a claim against the one asking the questions.
Audience question: Okay, so when your speaking of the "Order", that's referring to a delegation
of authority then?
Answer: well, it is whatever anybody's attempting to move on. Okay? Now here's where Elvick's commercial background comes in. Okay? The United States bifurcated military. The sale, the motivating drive behind the military to protect. And in order to protect it must have funds to pay the protectors. So it operates as a commercial enterprise. And it taxes commercial commerce to exact the funds to sustain itself. The commercial enterprise...
|
So when he courageously Refused for Cause a presentment on the clipboard the officer demanded he give back his copy of the (failed) agreement. Then the officer wrote up a new one, marked it Refused to Sign and shoved it back into the van window while running off!
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...and_Decree.rtf
The fellow seems smarter than to spend his time around here with Shoonra and AndyK though. These collection agent/parrots are really quite dangerous - especially if you have something to lose.
We have freedom of speech here on suijuris.net and that is good. But you really have to consider it wise to utilize the Ignore List function. I wish everybody would just let these trolls spout their party line into empty cyberspace!