No SUR - [SIR] NAME, The stance of the Diplomat

http://ecclesia.org/

The stance of the Diplomat is what carries the day in their courts. A Diplomat does not turn hostile, because he knows he has diplomatic immunity. They do follow rules. One is that all judges know they cannot prosecute you in your own name. As Diplomats, we must learn to answer their innocent sounding questions (which we know are a trap) with equally innocent sounding responses.

Judge: "What is your name?"
You: "Your Honor, if I give you my lawful Christian name (or True name), will you agree to prosecute me in that name?"

He has asked what to all appearances (to the ignorant) is the most ordinary question in the world. You have responded with an offer that also appears to the ignorant to be as reasonable as could possibly be. After all, isn't he simply trying to determine your actual name so he can prosecute you?

So you've stuffed him with this, as he cannot proceed against you in your true name AND he cannot admit that he is NOT after your true name. To validate David's point, I had one judge respond, "You know we also need a Surname in order to prosecute." As David is demonstrating, they can ONLY use a Surname.

If a judge were silly enough to agree to prosecute you in your true name, you wait until he has proven in writing or verbally that he is proceeding against the living soul, and then inform him,

"Your Honor, I see that you are proceeding against me in my true name. For you to do so requires my consent. For the record, I do not consent."

This is the proper time to tell him you do not consent, for until then he is not actually proceeding against you. In reading your statements of "I do not consent", they come across as those of a desperate man who has no confidence in his diplomatic immunity.

Judges discern hearts, and any judge hearing this will rightly assume authority over you, for your very words have betrayed the truth, not in what was stated but in how it was stated. You believed he had authority over you, so he did.

I once answered a question regarding my NAME with, "I am a stranger to you and I prefer it to remain this way as I have no wish to enter into contract with this Court."

A little while later this judge was announcing in frustration to everyone in the room, "He's challenging the jurisdiction of this Court!" Funny he should say that when I never once used the word "jurisdiction". I was rather enjoying my dipolomatic immunity that time.

The above two responses, along with "You may call me Gordon", have all stopped judges in New Zealand because they:

1) Answer the question with Truth.
2) Are not in any way hostile/beligerent.
3) Do not "give" the judge a Surname to use against me.

"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end"
Isaiah 9:7

Martha

Hi -

I do not have a name - a name is that designation assigned to property by the owner thereof, such as the owner's dog, cat, boat etc. Names of infants are "suggested" by the (US citizen) parents thereof but the “suggested” name does not become "official" until the name is entered on the birth certificate and the BC is filed with and approved by the appropriate government owner authority - as I have no (earthly) owner I do not have and do not answer to any name. I am Yadu Alipuria but that is not my name - it is who I am.

All this name stuff is very interesting but I have never found it necessary to use it in court - I just challenge there jurisdiction and ask them to establish jurisdiction over me out of their own files - not out of my mouth. I do not care how they write Yadu Alipuria - I only care about how I write it. If they don’t already have evidence of their jurisdiction over me prior to their accosting me then why did they do so? There are very few questions which they ask which I would answer with anything other than a question. If they asked me if I was a US citizen I would ask them if they were inquiring about my political status; to which I expect they would answer “yes”, if they did not answer “yes” but rather, persisted with the same question as to, "am I a US citizen" I would then state that US citizenship is a form of political status and that my political status is that of the Posterity of the People of the Preamble - that I am of the People of the United States recognized by Chief Justice John Jay in the case Chisholm v. Georgia, as being among those whom King George devolved his sovereignty in the Treaty of Peace of 1783.

I would never directly deny being a US citizen - I would ignore the question and respond as indicated, or some variation thereof, as appropriate based on the particular wording of their questions. If they asked me if I renounced my citizenship I would respond by asking, “How can I renounce that which I never applied for?” If they asked me where or when I was born I would respond by stating that there questions were clearly for the purpose of their establishing their jurisdiction over me out of my answers and that if they did not already have proof of their jurisdiction then the matter should be dismissed and expunged from their records.

If the judge ordered me to give a specific response I would respond by telling him that until jurisdiction was established he had no authority to order me to do anything; and further, that it was the duty of the prosecutor to establish jurisdiction - not the judge - and if the judge participated in attempting to establish jurisdiction I would advise him that he was disqualified for cause, as he had indicated by his conduct that he was not acting in a neutral manner.

Cheers,

Yadu

[test]

Interesting read:

http://www.freedomdomain.com/sovereignty/inform18.html

[re-ality]

martha, that site is great, yadu, ur right on point, give them 180 degrees what comes out they mouth.