quick lesson if arreseted or being charge in court

[hAKEEM]

Now we must understand redemption and its process after u have done the steps and when you enter there court do not swear in and when the Judge start adressing you. "Sir. are you the defendant?" something like that or "What's your name? Okay? You say "Well sir, what is your name? Question number 1. We our trying to write an agreement. And the first thing you need in

an agreement is the name of the second party. So the first thing you do is get the name so the record is set there. 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 go 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. 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. so when your speaking of the "Order", that;s referring to a delegation of authority then? it is whatever anybody's attempting to move on. Okay? Now here's where your

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 is private banking behind that "democracy",

but the office of the Secretary of the Treasury runs the commercial aspects of the "democracy".

Consequently, each and every act and action of that military government has a corresponding

parallel on it's commercial side. In other words, if a security issues, i.e., a complaint, an

information, a warrent, a citation, an invoice, it's all got commercial value to it, right? OK, so when they issue a citation or an indictment, somebody's already established a

commercial value on that instrument. And although there might be a set of papers in the

administrative process, like the court documents, we know, and reason, logic and common sense

tells you -- there's also a banking or a commercial set of documents in a series of accounts

paralleling it. So that if an indictment goes out, let's say on tax evasion, there's got to be an appraisal

that says that the appraised value of this indictment is $100,000.00 . So, in the Treasury, whenever

an indictment goes out on that basis, they now claim an assett by way of the security instrument

of $100,000.00 . And then there is a corresponding side to the ledger sheet which is an accounts receivable of $100,000.00 to back up the assett. DOUBLE ENTRY BOOKKEEPING, right?

Now the problem is... if you don't address the commercial aspects of the indictment, then they've

got an assett on their books which remains on their books, and if it's not adjudicated then they've

got accounts receivable that;s aging. And if you come back and dishonor the assett --

the indictment -- then, in essence their books are out of whack because there's a dispute as to the

assett, but there's still an accounts receivable of $100,000.00 that they're looking for. So the books

are out of whack. suggesting that there is a parallel commercial world and universe in bookkeeping that

parallels the legal judicial bookkeeping. In other

words, what he is saying is "If we have no firsthand witnesses or claimants present -- what the hell

are you guys operating on? Give me your marching orders". That's what he's saying. "I'm

demanding to see the order of the court." Will finished part 2 tomorrow I am so tired

[Ice]

If you don't give an oath in court the judge will not hear a word you say. Meanwhile, the opposing attorney is "presumed" to be under oath and the judge will hear every word he says.



How can you make the record if the judge doesn't hear you?



Personally, I'm using LAW and avoiding that "patriot redemption" stuff.



Ice

[suijuris]

I believe the source of that stuff is from one of the 'big' names in redemption. He is incarcerated and has been for some time and will be for some time to come, if my information is correct.



I have heard of (not first hand mind you) successes with this method, but I have heard of as many failures. I would not try it even on a traffic ticket.



Now, on this site are both the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Proceedure, annotated. If some of you would take the time to read it, you may actually find the silver bullet you are looking for - IN THE LAW!

[hughgrxtion]

I request the order of the court be released unto me immediately.

Why would you request the order of the court? Why not demand it?

[suijuris]

Either way, what if that request/demand is all the court needs to establish jurisdiction to issue an order?



Hey - your asking me to do it!

[hAKEEM]

It is Law your using let me continue and no this person is not locked up. The order would have to come out of the Secretary of the Treasury. Because he's the man with the liability for all the

books and he's the one that appraised the security instrument. So, if they don't have an Order

going back to the Secretary of the Treasury, they don't have any authority to collect the debt.

What's the probability that the Secretary of the Treasury issued them an order to collect the debt?

Zero...

Now if they don't have an order to collect the debt from someone who's the holder in due

course. i.e., the Secretary of the Treasury, then they are acting as rogue agents. In that capacity,

do you understand? Now let's go beyond that. If the Secretary of the Treasury gave an order,

where did he get the order allowing him to give the order to the court to collect the debt on that

security? Where did his authority come from? You keep going back until you get to God.

Now the issue is, did Congress -- the legislatively created democracy -- ever issue any kind of

acts or orders that permitted the Secretary of the Treasury to cut orders to the local judges or

anybody else to collect debts from the American people on the military takeover? Nobody thinks

so, but if they've got them -- produve the damn things. Okay? When you go into court like this you are exercising your rights under

public internation law to determine what kind of business these people are trying to do with you.

And remember, you are there in your "public capacity". Because under public international law,

private rights are recognized. But as soon as you engage in a co-business venture in their private

business, you're in their court in a business venture, you're in an agreement and everything is

proceeding. Now, the judge calls the case in order to transact "private" business in his "private" court. So

when you stand up, you cannot see their "private business". You stand up and your there for your

'public appearance' outside the venue. And you say, "What is your name?", in other words, "I want

to know with whom i'm doing business. "Do you have a claim against me?" In other words, "Are

we here on any 'public business'? "Do you know anyone who has a claim?". More public business.

Who's the witness? All you've got to go through is what you've got to go through.

Believe me, the judge will perfectly understand what's going on. And then , "I request the Order of

the court be released to me immediately", is the demand that if we're here on public business

involving me, I want to know who's behind the claim. With those four statements, has he not just

made a public verbal demand for a Bill of Particulars? He's trying to find out the nature and cause

of the claim. Okay?



Having no response from anyone then he would most likely make the following statement,

"It would appear as though I have completed my public business here today. There being no further

public business to carry on, i'm leaving." Now you're giving your equitable notice to the parties present, right? You turn and walk out. Let's say the judge yells from the bench: "Stop that man!".

Immediately stop in your tracks, turn around and say, "Sir, do you have a claim against me?"

You're right back to question two again. "Do you know anyone who has a claim against me?"

"I request the Order of the court be released to me immediately." "It appears that there is no more

public business to be carried on, i'm leaving". And turn around again and go. Do you understand?

Now the judge may go off his looney toons and yell for them to seize you. You don't want to

resist or anything. You've already put the judge on notice.

Only do this questioning after you have called someone to the witness stand, like the D.A. or public defender or even the judge. Just say, "I would like to call a witness to the stand for 'Direct Testimony' " , then once you have them

'locked in' they have to tell the truth right there. If you don't do this, it is not 'Direct Testimony' and you still might wind up in jail.-- Do it once, do it correctly)



Now, here is what your doing. When youmakees these four questions and statement, we have

created a small claims court. And a small claims court has different rules and procedures. There are

not Titles of Nobility. Not only are there no Titles of Nobility, but lawyers basically can't be present.

The parties themselves do the claims. And we will know who has got a claim and who doesn't.

If there are no claims then there is a default to our appearance to investigate. So what we're really doing is you brought an inquest hearing on a 'show cause'. You are doing a coroner's inquest or a

probate into the matter of any claims against you in common law. And in that inquest, only those

people that testify and have first hand information as to the claims are coming forward. If you are conducting a public inquest into the matter concerning any claims that may be brought against you,

and no claims are brought, the matter is concluded, the public inquest is over and you are outta

there.

Now, there are some variations that can happen with this. These people in Michigan were telling

how they've been using this in all kinds of cases -- tax cases, traffic cases, murder cases, you

name it. They are using it all over the place. Usually the judge goes quiet or every now and then

when we say, "Do you know anyone who...", the judge or the prosecutor might say, "The State of

______ has a claim against you". At that stage of the game, you've got to alter your questions a little

bit. "Is there anyone present to press the claim against me in any alleged name other than

their own?" Now, if the prosecutor wants to stand up and press that claim, then you demand that he

be sworn in to testify under oath as to the damage in the claim in which he is testifying... There's

your inquest. He is not going to swear in. If he fails to swear in, then at that stage of the game you

say, "There being no claimants who have sworn in under penalty of perjury today with a first hand

damage claim, it would appear as though there is no more public business concerning me, i'm

leaving". Don't allow him to hoodwink you into allegiance.

Now I was told about some people who tried doing this without understanding what they were

doing. One guy went up there was chewing a toothpick. He knew how to ask the three questions,

and he was cruising through them and he got down to the end and then looked a little bit confused

as to where to go from there. At that point the judge from the bench said "Take that toothpick

out of your mouth". And the guy reached up with his fingers, took the toothpick out of his mouth,

and the judge immediately yelled at the bailiff, "sieze that man and throw him in jail for ten days for contempt". When he followed the orders of the judge, the judge became the head and he became

the tail. What he should have done was continue to chew the toothpick and say, "Do you have a claim against me?" Because see, it's either the judge's private business that's going to go on in

there, which is the business of the corporate state, or your private rights under public law. If you

traverse into his business, you've just abandoned your claim. But with some exceptions like that,

where these people either didn't have the faith, or enough knowledge, or understanding of how

these things operate, there have been more sucesses than failures in which they just walked out of

the place and whatever it was that was coming against them just fell by the wayside or they had to come back and attempt something else.

Here is what happened to a guy.He was in federal prison for about 6 years because when

he was last charged with something, he did a patriot type thing and traversed to the charge that

found him guilty and was sentenced to 7 or 8 years. When he was there, he used all his time for

research. When they came to him at the end of 5 years they said, "You're outta here on probation".

And he said, "Look, if you release me it's non-conditional. I didn't come in on conditions and i'm

not going out on an agreement and a contract. They said, "Get the hell out of here".



Well in the last 6 months they have come back twice and arrested him on alleged probation

violations. The Marshals come out and arrest him. They drag him in to town in front of the district court on show cause on probation violations. Both times that he gone into court, when the

judge called the case, he stood up and said, "May I have your name? ... Do you have a claim against me?...Do you know anyone who does have a claim against me?... I request you release the

order of the court to me" The judge stayed quiet in every case. And he said, "It appears as though there is no more public business here. I'm out of here". He said that the most time he has been in

that Federal Court is 15 minutes. The last time, when he walked out after 10 minutes for which

the Marshals had dragged him about 80 miles into town in their car, he didn't have a ride back.

The probation officer said, come on with me, i'll drive you back home" and they became good friends.

The last time the Marshals went out to get him, He was a little smarter. He said, "hey, that

works in the court, let's see if it works with the Marshals". So when the Marshals showed up

saying, "We got a warrant for your arrest for probation violation". He looked at them and said,

"What's your name?... Do you have a claim against me?... Do you know anyone who has a claim

against me?.. The Marshals were silent. He said, "I request you release the order to me. The Marshal said, "well, we got the warrant but it's back at the office". So He looked at him and

said, "Do you have the order that issued to allow the warrant to issue?" And he said the Marshals

looked at him and said, "Why yea, we have that back at the office too". He says, "Hot dog, copme on, i'm going with you, I want to see a copy of that order". So they walked outside. They

has him in handcuffs and put him in the back of the car and he smiling from ear to ear. The two

Marshals got in, started up the engine and one Marshal looked at the other and said, "Get him outta

here". They got him out of the car, released him and said, "You go inside, we'll be back". They

haven't returned since. "Do you have a copy of the order that gave you the authority to issue the

warrant?" And I guess he said, "Now if you don't have that order, your operating in your private

capacity and I hope your insured and bonded". So you can see how it works.

snickering to myself. Man, you done went and pasted the Roger Elwick transcripts straight from the freedom domain redemption link to the stuff. Using that stuff is the fastest way for them to ignore you because its all based on theory. I had a judge look me in the eye when i used the 3 questions and he was dumbfounded. The judges and attornies DONOT know what the heck redmeption is. Rogers stuff is based on how the system mirrors commerce but its not workable in court unless the judge gets afraid of something he doesnt overstand and gets with the county attorney and they decide to let you slide. acceptance for value is legit, using your exemption is legit, the strawman is legit, but dont go off into the deep waters with roger's stuff because you have to have balls and a army to use his methods and not go to jail.

[hAKEEM]

it works i have use it and the law. You just have to understand the whole process. I dont use it everytime but I use the Acceptance for value always when you sign a ticket along with ucc-1-207. A lot of people and gov is discrediting his work b/c it works you just have to understand it and what Acceptance is.

[suijuris]

kgod, yep - I recognized it as copied from freedomdomain right away also.

[Ice]

Anyone is much better off standing on their natural rights as they are protected and guaranteed in the Constitution which gov. actors have sworn an oath to uphold... and they can be held accountable when they don't.



So many people have a VERY CLEAR UNDERSTANDING of A4V and all that other "redemption" stuff... they know their stuff --- BUT --- it does them no good in court.



What does work in court are U.S. Supreme Court cites. Now THAT is one heck of a way to keep the court on their toes!