Without Prejudice Works!

[dragonriot]

Originally Posted by hooded50

mrg's questions are all legitimate, and are the stuff that lawyer's nightmares are fashioned from.

Whenever someone tries to bill or sue you, the absolute BEST THING you can do, aside from pray to the Father in Heaven for wisdom, is to ask a series of questions.

Lawyers and companies HATE it when you respond to their correspondence with questions. When you state that you will be glad to contract with them as soon as they can define certain terms within the statutes they use, verify the debt under penalty of perjury, show proof that they have jurisdiction over you, etc, they get nervous. This is because they want to answer as few questions as possible. The more questions you make them answer, the more chance you can come back later and show that they have contradicted something they said before.

There is but ONE difference between a "corporation" and an "individual". BOTH are defined as "legal entities". A "corporation" is a fictitious legal entity that exists of more than one member, whereas an "individual" is a legal entity that exists of one member (examples include a corporate sole, single member LLC, etc).

The word "individual" simply means "one" or "single". The definition of the word "person" includes an "individual". An individual what? An individual car? An individual tree? An individual shark? Individual WHAT? An individual is never defined as a sovereign man or woman. This is because a sovereign cannot, in a legal sense, be a "person" (of any kind).

A "natural person", by contrast, is a human being which has been endowed with certain "rights" and "privileges" by the state. A "natural person" is still a "legal entity", and Supreme Court has held such.

A "corporation" is a "dead" legal entity, whereas a "natural person" is a "dead" legal entity that a "live" man or woman has agreed to become the surety for. If I go into Court and call to the stand the "person" known as "Wal-Mart", we'll wait a long time for "Wal-Mart" to make his way down front. This is because "Wal-Mart" is a fictitious legal entity that exists only in the imaginations of men, and is incapable of undertaking any action of its own accord. However, a live man or woman surety is perfectly capable of making his or her way down front, and often does so without any clue as to what he or she is actually agreeing to.

Now, let's suppose you live in the "State of Texas", and the "State of Texas" sues you in one of its Courts. According to the U.S. Constitution, you have the right to face and question your accuser. You slowly stand, clear your throat, and make the horrifying announcement " 'I call to the stand the person known as 'State of Texas' ". The judge immediately looks at you like he's just swallowed a goldfish. Here's why.

The caption of the suit says "State of Texas vs. John Q. Public". So, as the sovereign "John Q. Public", you have the right to face your accuser, and the paperwork says that "State of Texas" is your accuser. You have now called your accuser to the stand to question him, and he is nowhere to be found. This is because, as U.S. Supreme Court has held, a "State" is an "artificial person". It exsits only in the minds of men. How, then, did this "person" that does not exist, bring a suit against you in Court? IT DIDN'T. What actually happened was that a living, breathing LAWYER brought suit against you, hiding behind the name of "State of Texas". The lawyer did this thinking he would escape liability by claiming that some non-existent entity was actually the "person" who sued you.

If "State of Texas", as the Plaintiff, is not available for examination, then there is failure to prosecute because everything the lawyer says is hearsay which cannot be backed by the "person" allegedly bringing the suit. The Plaintiff simply does not exist.

This is where "a series of questions" comes into play:

1. Why can't "State of Texas" take the stand?
2. If "State of Texas" is the "person" suing me, then why did some lawyer, and not "State of Texas" sign and file the paperwork?
3. Does the lawyer representing "State of Texas" have a personal claim against me upon which relief may be granted?
4. Since the filing says the Plaintiff is "State of Texas", and "State of Texas" does not exist and cannot take the stand to testify, they what is the basis of the action, aside from sheer unadulterated hearsay?

The lawyers have to admit that "State of Texas" did NOT bring the action, but rather that lawyers were actually the one(s) who brought the action.

Say I ask these questions next time I go to court for a Speeding Ticket (won't ever happen again because of the vehicle I drive anyway, but...) and the docket says State of Wisconsin vs. Dragonriot... I ask the questions, what happens to my case? Do they throw it out after admitting that it was an attorney that filed the case on behalf of the State?? If the Hearsay account of the lawyer is not admissible in court, surely the issuing officer's statement and copy of my ticket is evidence enough for the judge, no? What does the judge do when I call "The State of Wisconsin" to the stand to testify against me?? Wouldn't the "arresting officer" be a legal representative of the "State"?

[rentiap]

Originally Posted by dragonriot

Say I ask these questions next time I go to court for a Speeding Ticket (won't ever happen again because of the vehicle I drive anyway, but...) and the docket says State of Wisconsin vs. Dragonriot... I ask the questions, what happens to my case? Do they throw it out after admitting that it was an attorney that filed the case on behalf of the State?? If the Hearsay account of the lawyer is not admissible in court, surely the issuing officer's statement and copy of my ticket is evidence enough for the judge, no? What does the judge do when I call "The State of Wisconsin" to the stand to testify against me?? Wouldn't the "arresting officer" be a legal representative of the "State"?

Well mister "arresting officer"so-called representative of the "The State of Wisconsin".
Please produce such document of power of attorney from all of the people of this "State of Wisconsin" that gives you power of attorney to represent the so-called injured people of this state!

[fighting_father]

I think Free Martha said it well, and most times without prejudice should be used injunction to retain your rights.
Anyone who states it does not work, does not know how to apply it or know what it is used for or how to use it.
All commercial documents (public domain) should be signed without prejudice, unless at some later date you want to enter it as an exhibit for a court proceeding.
Signing your name without a restrictive endorsement (without prejudice) on a government issued drivers license waives your common law rights.
If you don’t know what your rights are, then you don’t have any.
First, make sure you know who you are, make sure you know how to perform or act in commerce, then utilize the government issued tools, SSN, DL, BC and so on in your favour.
They have given remedies for all administrative and court proceedings.
Statutes = Administrative Law
Do not step into a court room unless the administrative procedure has been fully exhausted.
Free-man-on-the-land = Principal, Power of Attorney in fact, creditor, Administrator, Authorized Agent.
Legal Entity = Person, body politic, surety, obligator, commercial transmitting entity, DEBTOR.
Apply the principals accordingly and you have your remedy.
Leave the burden of proof where it belongs and the free-man will always be free.

[charlesa6]

Have been saying this all along, Sure ,"Without prejudice" work like a charm if you know how to apply it. It's simple as ABC and very effective.

[charlesa6]

One more note, if you use “Without Prejudice” for court cases, the Black roper is going to ask you the meaning of it and you better prepared to answer it or you just lost 30 points of your pleading to black roper decisions.

[Extramural]

Originally Posted by charlesa6

One more note, if you use “Without Prejudice” for court cases, the Black roper is going to ask you the meaning of it and you better prepared to answer it or you just lost 30 points of your pleading to black roper decisions.

This may have some meaning, if we knew what a "black roper" is...

Zat somtin like a colored cowboy?

[charlesa6]

You don't have to know, because you don't have the knowledge to know the meaning yet.
The high ranking members know.
You just a newbie, just listening you might learn something from the big senators.

cabbish!!

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by free_martha

Thanks charlesa6. It says in the Miranda warning that 'anything and everything' can be used as evidence against you - verbal or written.

It only makes sense to protect your autograph and to remain silent. My public servants have tried to say that it isn't my autograph but then I show their DL with without prejudice on it, it is known that it is my habit and my custom to autograph public documents 'without prejudice' under the authority of common law. The alphabet agencies and banks certainly don't like it. When queried about it, I say, it is a legal determination and I would advise you to ask a lawyer, as I have done.

I also tell them, I am not a lawyer, I can't give legal advice, consult your lawyer. That gets their attention, quick.

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by Livefire

When it comes to DL's in Michigan, the Secretary of State office will refuse your application if you sign with "all rights reserved" or any other restrictive endorsement.

And so they should. How can a person reserve their rights, when accepting a privelege? You can't be a human being and a person, only one.
If you intend to reserve your rights, then you would be a traveller, as is your right and the lisence is not needed.

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by theghost

Codee, your point is well taken, and well written. I for one never go around quoting ANY statute, code, regulation or case law, as if it pertained to, or protected me in any way. While the UCC is written in harmony with the common law, one should not quote the particular code section within his/her documents, if he or she claims to be sovereign. Although, one can use the common law language contained within the code, such as "without prejudice" without any problems, and this is what I do. Or, if one must cite a code for some reason, one might say something like;..."pursuant to "your" code section such and such".........Then you're simply pointing out/reminding them of the rules that bind "them".

Excellent points. Thanks for that.