Commercial Affidavit of Truth: Not all it's cracked up to be

[Lawdog]

Remember when this guy was arrested back in January? Well, now he's a convicted felon. That can happen when you file useless garbage like a "commercial affidavit of truth" rather than letting experienced counsel mount a sane, rational defense.

http://www.newsadvance.com/lna/news/...o perty/3326/

Published: March 26, 2008

RUSTBURG — A Campbell County man was convicted Wednesday of carrying a gun onto Rustburg High School’s parking lot in spite of his arguments that the government has no power over him and “is a fiction.”

Edward Royal Martin Jr. was also found guilty of possessing a vehicle whose identification number had been removed — a felony; and possession of a concealed weapon, driving without a license, and operating a vehicle without tags, all three misdemeanors.

He was found not guilty of a misdemeanor of driving without a vehicle inspection because he was charged under a law against riding electric bicycles on a sidewalk.

Martin defended himself in court, refusing offers from visiting retired Bristol Circuit Court Judge Charles Flanagan to appoint an
attorney.

He took exception to Flanagan’s characterization that Martin was “representing himself.”

“I am not representing myself,” Martin said. “There is only one of me. I am not a fiction.”

Martin also refused to answer “guilty” or “not guilty” to the charges, saying they were bricks in the road from freedom to tyranny.

He complained that the court did not recognize documents he filed, such as a “commercial affidavit of truth,” which are purported by anarchist political groups and those who believe in individual sovereignty to invalidate a court’s jurisdiction.

“I’m not guilty of any of the accused crimes because I am not the commercial property of the commonwealth,” Martin said.

According to testimony from Campbell County Sheriff’s Office Sgt. Mike Lawhorn, he was dispatched on an anonymous call on Nov. 17 that a vehicle in the parking lot at the school’s ring dance had no license plates.

Lawhorn said he located Martin’s pickup truck and found the vehicle identification number had also been removed — a felony carrying as many as five years in prison.

The misdemeanor charges came after Martin identified himself to Lawhorn only as “Ed” and handed over copies of documents such as his driver’s license, vehicle titles and other identification he told Lawhorn he had mailed back to the issuing government offices after he renounced their authority over him.

Lawhorn testified that Martin had fastened his own license plate to the car. The plate, he testified, “had two letters, ‘Ed.’”

During a search of the car, Lawhorn said, he found a loaded .45-caliber Heckler & Koch pistol under the front seat and a spare magazine in the driver’s side door.

Martin contended Wednesday that a state trooper, not Lawhorn, searched the car without cause when the gun was found. He didn’t press the issue with the deputy or the judge, or testify in his defense.

He told the court he was at the school for his daughter’s class ring ceremony and that he didn’t know the gun was in his truck at the time.

Martin has refused to provide his date of birth, but is listed in jail records as having a 1963 birth date. He has also refused to provide a current address.

He is being held in the Campbell County Adult Detention Center without bond pending sentencing, which was tentatively scheduled for May 19.

The felony charges carry a maximum sentence of five years in prison.

[moishanb]

Lawdog.

Why are you on this forum? What purpose do you have here. Are you practicing your 1st amendment right to free speech on this forum?

[Lawdog]

My purpose is to keep a few people from drinking the kool-aid, so to speak. Posting proof that certain theories don't work in the real world is enough to convince some people not to play with fire.

[moishanb]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

My purpose is to keep a few people from drinking the kool-aid, so to speak. Posting proof that certain theories don't work in the real world is enough to convince some people not to play with fire.

Thank you for the clear and direct response. You are saying you want to control other people's freedom to chose. You are also saying that beliefs are controlable, since you are posting here. This is my point exactly, and thank you for supporting my belief(or what you might call theory, since beliefs are just beliefs). Yet how ironic that beliefs are the most important approach to controlling people. Isn't that why you are here? To protect a few people from their beliefs? Your way is better, so to speak? By pointing out the flaws in one's beliefs.

I have no doubt, and do believe that there are erroneous methods posted on this and many other forums. But, doesn't each man/woman have the right to decide, and the right to make their own judgments. OOPS, I already know your answer, men and women can't make their own judgments, cuz judgments can only be made by a black robed guy/girl in a court AT LAW(close to but not law). You have 'case law' and codes to prove it, don't you. I think you would better yourself by reading one of my favorite cases, HALE v. HINKEL. This case supports my belief(you call it theory), although it is simply caselaw.

As always, good day to you LAWDOG

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

As usual Lawdog shows some of the hijinks that go on out there, with the choice of newspost or court case. Shall we parse this one a bit?

An affidavit is an affidavit. It serves a purpose. It doesnt "work", or "not work". Its an affidavit. Writing on a piece of paper.

But what on earth is all this about:

Edward Royal Martin Jr. was also found guilty of possessing a vehicle whose identification number had been removed — a felony; and possession of a concealed weapon, driving without a license, and operating a vehicle without tags, all three misdemeanors.

So the goofy, esoteric, lame, attorney-priest question is:

was the device a vehicle? See, the problem is these cultists have a weird religion where if you "fail to properly plead", they will rule on fiction. Not just fictional people, but fictional events, fictional characters, fictional acts, anything that is taken as "without rebuttal"

He was found not guilty of a misdemeanor of driving without a vehicle inspection because he was charged under a law against riding electric bicycles on a sidewalk.

WTF??? Was the charge "no inspection", or "riding a bicycle on the sidewalk"?


I cant make heads or tails of that one...suffice it to say more evidence of psychosis, like they like to impute to the common folk.

But this serves a purpose, to degrade the mind with contradictions. Good Job, Lawdog!

Martin also refused to answer “guilty” or “not guilty” to the charges...

“I’m not guilty of any of the accused crimes...” Martin said.

Now my head has fallen off and is spinning like a top on the floor. Musta been that "commercial affidavit" i took yesterday...

During a search of the car, Lawhorn said, he found a loaded .45-caliber Heckler & Koch pistol under the front seat and a spare magazine in the driver’s side door.

Martin contended Wednesday that a state trooper, not Lawhorn, searched the car without cause when the gun was found. He didn’t press the issue with the deputy or the judge, or testify in his defense.

But somehow...

He told the court he was at the school for his daughter’s class ring ceremony and that he didn’t know the gun was in his truck at the time.

So he did plead "not guilty", appeared as "defendant" and even testified.

possession of a concealed weapon

Dollars to donuts the state actor's testimony showed otherwise. The gun was under the seat of the ruck, not on his body. Judge couldnt care less, they just keep the railroad going. Can Lawdog spell "no subject matter jurisdiction"?


According to the TEMPLE, this dude "Ed Royal"

refused to plead, and plead

didnt testify, but "told the judge"

was charged with "no inspection", and found "not guilty of bicycle"

accused of keeping a gun in his truck, and charged with "carrying concealed"

charged with "vehicle", without collateral.

I would have thought the contradictions were deliberate but they are more likely unconscious- the dumbed down american with fried chicken on the brain.

Lucky Ed. I think what Lawdog is trying to say, is "see what happens when you are difficult and dont pay my fee?"

Shoonra is just dying for some more prison stories...all that guy-on-guy action...maybe when "Ed" gets out you two can get together and compare notes.

Dont drink the kool-aid, drink the kool-aid. Lawdog says: "Fee Me!"

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by moishanb

I have no doubt, and do believe that there are erroneous methods posted on this and many other forums. But, doesn't each man/woman have the right to decide, and the right to make their own judgments.
As always, good day to you LAWDOG

Yes, you have the right to make your own judgments in the sense of beliefs or opinions. You can believe anything you want.

You also have the right to drink poison or play in traffic. But I don't recommend it.

Acting on erroneous beliefs can have dire consequences, as Mr. Martin can attest.

[trooper2ls]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

mount a sane, rational defense.

I believe the meat of your post lies in the following statement quoted above. An affidavit is only as good as the fact presented within.

Such means of signing is an oath, or Commercial Affidavit, executed under penalty of perjury, "true. Correct, and complete". Whereas in a court setting testimony (oral) is stated in judicial terms by being sworn to be "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God."

In addition to asserting all matters under solemn oath of personal, commercial, financial, and legal liability for the validity of each and every statement, the participant must provide material evidence, i.e. ledgering, or bookkeeping, providing the truth, validity, relevance, and verifiably of each and every particular assertion to sustain credibility.

When you issue an affidavit, it is a two edged sword; it cuts both ways. Someone has to take responsibility for saying that it is a real situation. It can be called a true bill, as they say in the Grand Jury. When you issue an affidavit in commerce you get the power of an affidavit. You also incur the liability, because this has to be a situation where other people might be adversely affected by it. Things change by your affidavit, in which are going to affect people's lives. If what you say in your affidavit is, in fact, not true, then those who are adversely affected can come back at you with justifiable recourse because you lied. You have told a lie as if it were the truth. People depend on your affidavit and then they have lost because you lied.

AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT BECOMES THE JUDGMENT IN COMMERCE. (Heb. 6:16-17;). There is nothing left to resolve. Any proceeding in a court, tribunal, or arbitration forum consists of a contest, or duel, of commercial affidavits wherein the points remaining un-rebutted in the end stand as truth and matters to which the judgment of the law is applied.

So all that being said... the Affidavit is not the faulty mechanism here but the facts, validity, relevance, and verifiably of each and every particular assertion that this unstable individual made.

Nice try LD.

..J

[Lawdog]

You cite a passage from the book of Hebrews in the Christian Bible as support for your argument, and expect to be taken seriously?

The Bible is not the law in this country. This ain't a damn theocracy. You want to live under a theocratic dictatorship, move to Iran.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion[.]" It's called the First Amendment to the Constitution. Look it up.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by moishanb

Lawdog.

Why are you on this forum? What purpose do you have here. Are you practicing your 1st amendment right to free speech on this forum?

Lawdog is welcome on this forum, as anyone else is; as long as he doesn't mount character attacks; and the same is expected of any member; lest they get suspended

moishanb; If you don't like opposition, you shouldn't be getting into this stuff


However;
Lawdog, is this guy a threat to society, by attending an event for his daughter at school ?

The only injured party is him in the end

It is a trip how you condone state sponsored terrorism of a responsible Dad who was supporting his little girl

Can't see the forest thorugh the trees, perhaps?

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Meanwhile the unrebutted affidavits of the prosecution in the above case stood as truth- enough to convict this man of offenses he did not actually commit- not one of them!

Its good if it feeds the lawdogs, but crazy if it helps the folk. Go to the psych ward and let them pump their poisons in various parts of the body- Shoonra like to watch.