THE ILLUSION OF LAW AND JUSTICE

[Vicegerent]

This article is equally applicable to Canada,
and the fake judicial system of Canada

THE ILLUSION OF LAW AND JUSTICE
By: Charles "Scott" Vaught, - Delegate, Ark.
Constitutional Convention 1979-80
District 11, (Citizens Rights Committee)


The American Court System has been fundamentally
altered, right under the noses of the distracted
American people. In the place of our great Article III,
Constitutional Courts of Common Law, are altered
Courts of Legislative Equity, secretly administering
the Laws of Commerce by operating "In Chambers,"
under the Rules of Admiralty.

The modern Court retains in every minute detail,
the illusion and appearance of our former great
Courts of Common Law. However, every thing
therein is a staged reproduction, a created
illusion, emulating and mimicking the former
US Courts of Law in exquisite detail.

In Errie Rail Road - v - Thompkins (1938) The US
Supreme Court Ruled: "All Law is Commerce."
This Landmark Ruling ended the era of US Courts
of Common Law and ushered in the New Age
of American Jurisprudence. All Commerce being
"The Laws of Contract," went sailing over the
heads of most of the legal illiterate American
People.

The Alteration began in 1939, with a Lawyer
dominated US Congress, combining "Law"
and "Equity" Jurisdictions for American Courts.
And in 1966, another Lawyer dominated
Congress added Admiralty Jurisdiction to
the admixture of "Law" and "Equity" for
American Courts.

This alteration is seen Codified today in the
Uniform Commercial Code, which has now
been adopted by virtually every State of the
Republic. And, most recently having been
Ruled by the US Supreme Court: "The Law
of the Land," in essence, supplanting even
the US and State Constitutions.

The Judge
In the present US Courts, the illusion of a
seated Judge in a Court of Law,

Is in reality: An Administrative Chancellor
in Legislative Equity, seated "in Chambers"
as a third-party debt-collector; an
Administrative employee of a Private,
for-profit, Foreign Corporation, titled:
US Inc. and incorporated in the State
of Delaware.

The Bailiff
A Foreign Mercenary Enforcer, an employee
who physically enforces by executing the
Ruling / Sentence of the third-party debt-
collector and Administrative Officer of the
Foreign Corporate State.

The Prosecutor
The paid "False Witness / Informant," who
is in conspiracy with the Administrative
Officer, and who exclusively is permitted
to enter hear-say evidence under the guise
of an "Information" into the record of the Court.
Even though, he himself was never a party
to any alleged Contract with the accused,
nor has he any first-hand knowledge of
the facts.


The Accused / Defendant / Respondent
The poor misguided American fool who
arrives in Court with Constitution in hand.
Who believes that even after 200 hundred
years of our neglect to defend it, that the
Constitution still somehow remains the
guardian of our Liberty.

He will be bitch-slapped into instant reality,
when told by the Court: "The Constitution
does not apply!" He will pay the penalty
and return to his arm-chair Patriot status
of waiving the flag once a year, TV Football
games, and hearing the ever increasingly
controlled News Media, telling him how
great it is to be a "free American!"

And perhaps upon Sunday, he will attend
a Judeo-Christian Church, who in co-conspiracy
(for the price of their Harlotry,) will instruct him:
"To obey those who have the rule over you
(Romans 13)," appropriately omitting the
remainder of the verse: "...who have spoken
to you the word of God!" And, never, ever
mentioning: "Resist Evil, and it will flee
from you!"

Yes, "You can fool some of the people
some of the time. And that's enough to
make a decent living!" (W C Fields).

Posted by: Vicegerent

[Abbot]

Post by Vicegerent
This article is equally applicable to Canada,
and the fake judicial system of Canada
THE ILLUSION OF LAW AND JUSTICE
By: Charles "Scott" Vaught, - Delegate, Ark.
Constitutional Convention 1979-80
District 11, (Citizens Rights Committee)
The American Court System has been fundamentally
altered, right under the noses of the distracted
American people. In the place of our great Article III,
Constitutional Courts of Common Law, are altered
Courts of Legislative Equity, secretly administering
the Laws of Commerce by operating "In Chambers,"
under the Rules of Admiralty.

Abbot) Poppycock. As we will see you can't support this claim, Eldon.
Clearly, you have not even read Erie Rail Road.

Post by Vicegerent
The modern Court retains in every minute detail,
the illusion and appearance of our former great
Courts of Common Law. However, every thing
therein is a staged reproduction, a created
illusion, emulating and mimicking the former
US Courts of Law in exquisite detail.
In Errie Rail Road - v - Thompkins (1938) The US
Supreme Court Ruled: "All Law is Commerce."

Abbot) No such quote appears in the ruling.

In fact the ruling held that the federal courts must follow and apply
both state statutes and state case law in deciding cases unless the
case is governed by federal statutes or the United States Constitution.

Read the ruling for yourself :
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=304&invol=64

Clearly Eldon didn't.

Post by Vicegerent
This Landmark Ruling ended the era of US Courts
of Common Law and ushered in the New Age
of American Jurisprudence. All Commerce being
"The Laws of Contract," went sailing over the
heads of most of the legal illiterate American
People.
The Alteration began in 1939, with a Lawyer
dominated US Congress, combining "Law"
and "Equity" Jurisdictions for American Courts.
And in 1966, another Lawyer dominated
Congress added Admiralty Jurisdiction to
the admixture of "Law" and "Equity" for
American Courts.

Abbot) The reader will see that no proofs of this claim, or subsequent
claims, are offered.

Post by Vicegerent
This alteration is seen Codified today in the
Uniform Commercial Code, which has now
been adopted by virtually every State of the
Republic. And, most recently having been
Ruled by the US Supreme Court: "The Law
of the Land," in essence, supplanting even
the US and State Constitutions.
The Judge
In the present US Courts, the illusion of a
seated Judge in a Court of Law,
Is in reality: An Administrative Chancellor
in Legislative Equity, seated "in Chambers"
as a third-party debt-collector; an
Administrative employee of a Private,
US Inc. and incorporated in the State
of Delaware.
The Bailiff
A Foreign Mercenary Enforcer, an employee
who physically enforces by executing the
Ruling / Sentence of the third-party debt-
collector and Administrative Officer of the
Foreign Corporate State.
The Prosecutor
The paid "False Witness / Informant," who
is in conspiracy with the Administrative
Officer, and who exclusively is permitted
to enter hear-say evidence under the guise
of an "Information" into the record of the Court.
Even though, he himself was never a party
to any alleged Contract with the accused,
nor has he any first-hand knowledge of
the facts.
The Accused / Defendant / Respondent
The poor misguided American fool who
arrives in Court with Constitution in hand.
Who believes that even after 200 hundred
years of our neglect to defend it, that the
Constitution still somehow remains the
guardian of our Liberty.
He will be bitch-slapped into instant reality,
when told by the Court: "The Constitution
does not apply!" He will pay the penalty
and return to his arm-chair Patriot status
of waiving the flag once a year, TV Football
games, and hearing the ever increasingly
controlled News Media, telling him how
great it is to be a "free American!"
And perhaps upon Sunday, he will attend
a Judeo-Christian Church, who in co-conspiracy
"To obey those who have the rule over you
(Romans 13)," appropriately omitting the
remainder of the verse: "...who have spoken
to you the word of God!" And, never, ever
mentioning: "Resist Evil, and it will flee
from you!"
Yes, "You can fool some of the people
some of the time. And that's enough to
make a decent living!" (W C Fields).
Posted by: Vicegerent

[Abbot]

Post by Vicegerent
This article is equally applicable to Canada,
and the fake judicial system of Canada
THE ILLUSION OF LAW AND JUSTICE
By: Charles "Scott" Vaught, - Delegate, Ark.
Constitutional Convention 1979-80
District 11, (Citizens Rights Committee)
The American Court System has been fundamentally
altered, right under the noses of the distracted
American people. In the place of our great Article III,
Constitutional Courts of Common Law, are altered
Courts of Legislative Equity, secretly administering
the Laws of Commerce by operating "In Chambers,"
under the Rules of Admiralty.

Abbot) Poppycock. As we will see Eldon offers no documentation of his
claims and, once again, fails to check his sources.

Post by Vicegerent
The modern Court retains in every minute detail,
the illusion and appearance of our former great
Courts of Common Law. However, every thing
therein is a staged reproduction, a created
illusion, emulating and mimicking the former
US Courts of Law in exquisite detail.
In Errie Rail Road - v - Thompkins (1938)

Abbot) Note, again, the detax practice of citing the case inaccurately
so that gullible detaxers won't be able to look the case up. The
correct spelling and notation is:

ERIE R. CO. v. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)

Post by Vicegerent
The US Supreme Court Ruled: "All Law is Commerce."

Abbot) No such quote appears in the ruling.

In fact the ruling held that the federal courts must follow and apply
both state statutes and state case law in deciding cases unless the
case is governed by federal statutes or the United States Constitution.

Read the ruling for yourself :

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=304&invol=64

Clearly Eldon didn't.

Post by Vicegerent
This Landmark Ruling ended the era of US Courts
of Common Law and ushered in the New Age
of American Jurisprudence. All Commerce being
"The Laws of Contract," went sailing over the
heads of most of the legal illiterate American
People.

Abbot) Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, was a decision in which the High
Court held that federal did not have the power to make up general
federal common law when hearing state law claims under its diversity
jurisdiction. I suspect this rejection of a century of federal civil
proceedure is believed by nitwits like Eldon to be an embrace of
purely commerical law since it rejected what was called federal
"common law".

It had been settled law prior to Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. 1 (1842) that
when a federal court hears a state cause of action brought in
diversity, the statutory law of the state would be applied. However, in
Swift, the Supreme Court had held that the federal courts were not to
apply the court-made common law of the states.

This had led to forum shopping, where plaintiffs would seek to sue in
federal court instead of state court in order to have a different
substantive law applied. In light of this inequity, in Eire, the
Supreme Court determined that federal courts should apply state common
law.

Thus it appears, as nearly as we can in translating detax jibberish,
that Eldon has it exactly backwards. In fact the court was restoring
more traditional law and returning power to the states.

Post by Vicegerent
The Alteration began in 1939, with a Lawyer
dominated US Congress, combining "Law"
and "Equity" Jurisdictions for American Courts.
And in 1966, another Lawyer dominated
Congress added Admiralty Jurisdiction to
the admixture of "Law" and "Equity" for
American Courts.
This alteration is seen Codified today in the
Uniform Commercial Code, which has now
been adopted by virtually every State of the
Republic. And, most recently having been
Ruled by the US Supreme Court: "The Law
of the Land," in essence, supplanting even
the US and State Constitutions.
The Judge
In the present US Courts, the illusion of a
seated Judge in a Court of Law,
Is in reality: An Administrative Chancellor
in Legislative Equity, seated "in Chambers"
as a third-party debt-collector; an
Administrative employee of a Private,
US Inc. and incorporated in the State
of Delaware.
The Bailiff
A Foreign Mercenary Enforcer, an employee
who physically enforces by executing the
Ruling / Sentence of the third-party debt-
collector and Administrative Officer of the
Foreign Corporate State.
The Prosecutor
The paid "False Witness / Informant," who
is in conspiracy with the Administrative
Officer, and who exclusively is permitted
to enter hear-say evidence under the guise
of an "Information" into the record of the Court.
Even though, he himself was never a party
to any alleged Contract with the accused,
nor has he any first-hand knowledge of
the facts.
The Accused / Defendant / Respondent
The poor misguided American fool who
arrives in Court with Constitution in hand.
Who believes that even after 200 hundred
years of our neglect to defend it, that the
Constitution still somehow remains the
guardian of our Liberty.
He will be bitch-slapped into instant reality,
when told by the Court: "The Constitution
does not apply!" He will pay the penalty
and return to his arm-chair Patriot status
of waiving the flag once a year, TV Football
games, and hearing the ever increasingly
controlled News Media, telling him how
great it is to be a "free American!"
And perhaps upon Sunday, he will attend
a Judeo-Christian Church, who in co-conspiracy
"To obey those who have the rule over you
(Romans 13)," appropriately omitting the
remainder of the verse: "...who have spoken
to you the word of God!" And, never, ever
mentioning: "Resist Evil, and it will flee
from you!"
Yes, "You can fool some of the people
some of the time. And that's enough to
make a decent living!" (W C Fields).
Posted by: Vicegerent

[Vicegerent]

The precedent set in the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins
was: "This case was a grand victory for states to
express PUBLIC POLICY through the decisions
of state courts without interference from federal
judges.

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/112/

Public Policy v. Public Law

Exerpt from the written material by the late
Howard Freeman:

Public Law v. Public Policy

He (Judge) said, "Name any decision of the Supreme
Court _after_1938_ and I'll honor it, but all the decisions
you read were prior to 1938, and I don't honor those
decisions." I asked what happened in 1938. He said,
"Prior to 1938, the SC was dealing w/_Public_Law_;
since 1938, the SC has dealt w/_Public_Policy_.
The charge that Mr. S was being tried for is a _Public
_Policy_Statute_, not Public Law, and those SC
cases do not apply to the Public Policy." I asked
him what happened in 1938. He said that he had
already told me too much - he wasn't going to tell
me any more.

1938 and the Erie Railroad

Well I began to investigate. I found that 1938 was
the year of the *Erie Railroad v. Tompkins* case of
the SC. It was also the year the courts claim they
blended _Law_ w/_Equity_. I read the Erie Railroad
case. A man had sued the Erie railroad for damages
when he was struck by a board sticking out of a
boxcar as he walked along besides the tracks.

The district court had decided on the basis of
Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Law: that
this man was not under any contract w/the Erie
Railroad, and therefore he had no standing to sue
the company. Under the Common Law, he was
damaged and he would have had the right to sue.

This overturned a standing decision of over one
hundred years. *Swift v. Tyson* in 1840 was a
similar case, and the decision of the SC was that
in any case of this type, the court would judge the
case on Common Law of the _state_ where the
incident occurred - in this case Pennsylvania.

But in the Erie Railroad case, the SC ruled that
all federal cases will be judged under the Negotiable
Instruments Law. There would be _no_ _more_ _
decisions_ _based_ _on_ _the_ _Common_ _Law_
at the federal level. So here we find the blending
of the Law w/ Equity.

This was a puzzle to me. As I put these new pieces
together, I determined that _all our courts since 1938
were Merchant Law courts and not Common Law
Courts._ There were still some pieces of the puzzle
missing.

A Friend in the Court

Fortunately, I made a friend of a judge. Now you won't
make friends w/a judge if you go into the court like a
"wolf in black sheep country." You must approach him
as though you are the sheep and he is the wolf. If you
go into court as a wolf, you make demands and tell
the judge what the law is -- how he had better uphold
the law or else... Remember the verse: I send you out
as a sheep in wolf country; be wise as a serpent and
harmless as a dove. We have to go into court and be
wise and harmless, and not make demands. We
must play a _little dumb_ and ask a lot of questions.
Well, I asked a lot of questions and boxed the judges
into the corner where they had to give me a victory or
admit what they didn't want to admit. I won the case
and on the way out I had to stop by the clerk's office
to get some papers. One of the judges stopped and
said "You're an interesting man, Mr. Freeman. If you're
ever in town, stop by and if I'm not sitting on a case
we will visit."

America is Bankrupt

Later, when I went to visit the judge, I told him my
problem w/the SC cases dealing with Public Policy
rather than Public Law. He said, "In 1938, all the
higher judges, the top attorneys and the U.S.
Attorneys were called together into a _secret_
meeting_ and this is what we were told:

"America is a bankrupt nation -- it is owned
completely by its creditors. The creditors own
the Congress, they own th executive, they own
the Judiciary and they own all the state
governments.

_Take silent judicial notice_ of this fact, but _
never_ reveal it openly. Your court is operating
in a Admiralty Jurisdiction -- call it anything you
want, but do not call it Admiralty. "

Admiralty Courts

The reason they cannot call it Admiralty
Jurisdiction is that your defense would be quite
different in Admiralty Jurisdiction from your defense
under the Common Law. In Admiralty, there is no
court which has jurisdiction unless there is a valid
International contract in dispute. If you know wit is
Admiralty Jurisdiction, and they have admitted on
the record that you are in an Admiralty Court, you
can demand that the international maritime contract,
to which you are supposedly party, and which you
supposedly have breached, _be placed into evidence._

No court has Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction unless
there is a valid international maritime contract that
has been breeched.

So you say, just innocently like a lamb, "Well, I
never knew that I got involved with an international
maritime contract, so I deny that such a contract
exists. If this court is taking jurisdiction in Admiralty,
then place the contract in evidence, so that I might
challenge the validity of the contract." What they
would have do do is place the _national debt_ into
evidence. The would have to admits that the
international bankers own the whole nation,
and that we are their slaves. Unquote

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/law/ucc-connection.htm

So, Jack Foster, AKA: Abbot, you are full of
evil pig shit.

Vicegerent

[Abbot]

Abbot) Readers will note that the dishonest Eldon Warman has removed
the refutation of his original post and simply covered over his
origninal lie with a cut and paste screed.

Readers will note a that at NO point in Erie does the court say all
courts are commerical.

Post by Vicegerent
The precedent set in the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins
was: "This case was a grand victory for states to
express PUBLIC POLICY through the decisions
of state courts without interference from federal
judges.

Abbot) So state courts and state law was empowered, not "commerical"
courts.

Post by Vicegerent
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/112/
Public Policy v. Public Law
Exerpt from the written material by the late
Public Law v. Public Policy
He (Judge) said, "Name any decision of the Supreme
Court _after_1938_ and I'll honor it, but all the decisions
you read were prior to 1938, and I don't honor those
decisions." I asked what happened in 1938. He said,
"Prior to 1938, the SC was dealing w/_Public_Law_;
since 1938, the SC has dealt w/_Public_Policy_.
The charge that Mr. S was being tried for is a _Public
_Policy_Statute_, not Public Law, and those SC
cases do not apply to the Public Policy." I asked
him what happened in 1938. He said that he had
already told me too much - he wasn't going to tell
me any more.

Abbot) The argument is inaccurate at best. And a contradictory lie at
worst. One wonders how Eldon's quisling fools can say Chisholm v.
Georgia is law when it was written in 1793 and yet Warman turns around
and implies it is not law because it predates 1938.

And since it avoids Eldon's claim that all courts are commercial the
argument is Warman's usual attempt to avoid responsibility for his p*ss
poor scholarship . . .just like he avoids responsibility for wrecking
the lives of gullible detaxers!

Post by Vicegerent
1938 and the Erie Railroad
Well I began to investigate. I found that 1938 was
the year of the *Erie Railroad v. Tompkins* case of
the SC. It was also the year the courts claim they
blended _Law_ w/_Equity_. I read the Erie Railroad
case. A man had sued the Erie railroad for damages
when he was struck by a board sticking out of a
boxcar as he walked along besides the tracks.
The district court had decided on the basis of
Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Law: that
this man was not under any contract w/the Erie
Railroad, and therefore he had no standing to sue
the company. Under the Common Law, he was
damaged and he would have had the right to sue.
This overturned a standing decision of over one
hundred years. *Swift v. Tyson* in 1840 was a
similar case, and the decision of the SC was that
in any case of this type, the court would judge the
case on Common Law of the _state_ where the
incident occurred - in this case Pennsylvania.
But in the Erie Railroad case, the SC ruled that
all federal cases will be judged under the Negotiable
Instruments Law. There would be _no_ _more_ _
decisions_ _based_ _on_ _the_ _Common_ _Law_
at the federal level. So here we find the blending
of the Law w/ Equity.
This was a puzzle to me. As I put these new pieces
together, I determined that _all our courts since 1938
were Merchant Law courts and not Common Law
Courts._ There were still some pieces of the puzzle
missing.
A Friend in the Court

Abbot) Only Warman would claim that a sort of friend of the court brief
is law!

Post by Vicegerent
Fortunately, I made a friend of a judge. Now you won't
make friends w/a judge if you go into the court like a
"wolf in black sheep country." You must approach him
as though you are the sheep and he is the wolf. If you
go into court as a wolf, you make demands and tell
the judge what the law is -- how he had better uphold
the law or else... Remember the verse: I send you out
as a sheep in wolf country; be wise as a serpent and
harmless as a dove. We have to go into court and be
wise and harmless, and not make demands. We
must play a _little dumb_ and ask a lot of questions.
Well, I asked a lot of questions and boxed the judges
into the corner where they had to give me a victory or
admit what they didn't want to admit. I won the case
and on the way out I had to stop by the clerk's office
to get some papers. One of the judges stopped and
said "You're an interesting man, Mr. Freeman. If you're
ever in town, stop by and if I'm not sitting on a case
we will visit."
America is Bankrupt
Later, when I went to visit the judge, I told him my
problem w/the SC cases dealing with Public Policy
rather than Public Law. He said, "In 1938, all the
higher judges, the top attorneys and the U.S.
Attorneys were called together into a _secret_
"America is a bankrupt nation -- it is owned
completely by its creditors. The creditors own
the Congress, they own th executive, they own
the Judiciary and they own all the state
governments.

Abbot) Now Eldon tells us conspiracy theories about the U.S.
government's supposed bankruptcy trumps Supreme Court decisions.

The man's insane!

Post by Vicegerent
_Take silent judicial notice_ of this fact, but _
never_ reveal it openly. Your court is operating
in a Admiralty Jurisdiction -- call it anything you
want, but do not call it Admiralty. "
Admiralty Courts
The reason they cannot call it Admiralty
Jurisdiction is that your defense would be quite
different in Admiralty Jurisdiction from your defense
under the Common Law. In Admiralty, there is no
court which has jurisdiction unless there is a valid
International contract in dispute. If you know wit is
Admiralty Jurisdiction, and they have admitted on
the record that you are in an Admiralty Court, you
can demand that the international maritime contract,
to which you are supposedly party, and which you
supposedly have breached, _be placed into evidence._
No court has Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction unless
there is a valid international maritime contract that
has been breeched.
So you say, just innocently like a lamb, "Well, I
never knew that I got involved with an international
maritime contract, so I deny that such a contract
exists. If this court is taking jurisdiction in Admiralty,
then place the contract in evidence, so that I might
challenge the validity of the contract." What they
would have do do is place the _national debt_ into
evidence. The would have to admits that the
international bankers own the whole nation,
and that we are their slaves. Unquote
http://www.worldnewsstand.net/law/ucc-connection.htm
So, Jack Foster, AKA: Abbot, you are full of
evil pig shit.

Abbot) Eldon, you are an insane fool who doesn't mind telling any lie,
making any contradictory claim as long as you think it will fool the
gullible rubes upon whose ruined lives you suave your ego

Post by Vicegerent
Vicegerent

[Vicegerent]

The precedent set in the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins
was: "This case was a grand victory for states to
express PUBLIC POLICY through the decisions
of state courts without interference from federal
judges.

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/112/

Public Policy v. Public Law

Exerpt from the written material by the late
Howard Freeman:

Public Law v. Public Policy

He (Judge) said, "Name any decision of the Supreme
Court _after_1938_ and I'll honor it, but all the decisions
you read were prior to 1938, and I don't honor those
decisions." I asked what happened in 1938. He said,
"Prior to 1938, the SC was dealing w/_Public_Law_;
since 1938, the SC has dealt w/_Public_Policy_.
The charge that Mr. S was being tried for is a _Public
_Policy_Statute_, not Public Law, and those SC
cases do not apply to the Public Policy." I asked
him what happened in 1938. He said that he had
already told me too much - he wasn't going to tell
me any more.

1938 and the Erie Railroad

Well I began to investigate. I found that 1938 was
the year of the *Erie Railroad v. Tompkins* case of
the SC. It was also the year the courts claim they
blended _Law_ w/_Equity_. I read the Erie Railroad
case. A man had sued the Erie railroad for damages
when he was struck by a board sticking out of a
boxcar as he walked along besides the tracks.

The district court had decided on the basis of
Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Law: that
this man was not under any contract w/the Erie
Railroad, and therefore he had no standing to sue
the company. Under the Common Law, he was
damaged and he would have had the right to sue.

This overturned a standing decision of over one
hundred years. *Swift v. Tyson* in 1840 was a
similar case, and the decision of the SC was that
in any case of this type, the court would judge the
case on Common Law of the _state_ where the
incident occurred - in this case Pennsylvania.

But in the Erie Railroad case, the SC ruled that
all federal cases will be judged under the Negotiable
Instruments Law. There would be _no_ _more_ _
decisions_ _based_ _on_ _the_ _Common_ _Law_
at the federal level. So here we find the blending
of the Law w/ Equity.

This was a puzzle to me. As I put these new pieces
together, I determined that _all our courts since 1938
were Merchant Law courts and not Common Law
Courts._ There were still some pieces of the puzzle
missing.

A Friend in the Court

Fortunately, I made a friend of a judge. Now you won't
make friends w/a judge if you go into the court like a
"wolf in black sheep country." You must approach him
as though you are the sheep and he is the wolf. If you
go into court as a wolf, you make demands and tell
the judge what the law is -- how he had better uphold
the law or else... Remember the verse: I send you out
as a sheep in wolf country; be wise as a serpent and
harmless as a dove. We have to go into court and be
wise and harmless, and not make demands. We
must play a _little dumb_ and ask a lot of questions.
Well, I asked a lot of questions and boxed the judges
into the corner where they had to give me a victory or
admit what they didn't want to admit. I won the case
and on the way out I had to stop by the clerk's office
to get some papers. One of the judges stopped and
said "You're an interesting man, Mr. Freeman. If you're
ever in town, stop by and if I'm not sitting on a case
we will visit."

America is Bankrupt

Later, when I went to visit the judge, I told him my
problem w/the SC cases dealing with Public Policy
rather than Public Law. He said, "In 1938, all the
higher judges, the top attorneys and the U.S.
Attorneys were called together into a _secret_
meeting_ and this is what we were told:

"America is a bankrupt nation -- it is owned
completely by its creditors. The creditors own
the Congress, they own th executive, they own
the Judiciary and they own all the state
governments.

_Take silent judicial notice_ of this fact, but _
never_ reveal it openly. Your court is operating
in a Admiralty Jurisdiction -- call it anything you
want, but do not call it Admiralty. "

Admiralty Courts

The reason they cannot call it Admiralty
Jurisdiction is that your defense would be quite
different in Admiralty Jurisdiction from your defense
under the Common Law. In Admiralty, there is no
court which has jurisdiction unless there is a valid
International contract in dispute. If you know wit is
Admiralty Jurisdiction, and they have admitted on
the record that you are in an Admiralty Court, you
can demand that the international maritime contract,
to which you are supposedly party, and which you
supposedly have breached, _be placed into evidence._

No court has Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction unless
there is a valid international maritime contract that
has been breeched.

So you say, just innocently like a lamb, "Well, I
never knew that I got involved with an international
maritime contract, so I deny that such a contract
exists. If this court is taking jurisdiction in Admiralty,
then place the contract in evidence, so that I might
challenge the validity of the contract." What they
would have do do is place the _national debt_ into
evidence. The would have to admits that the
international bankers own the whole nation,
and that we are their slaves. Unquote

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/law/ucc-connection.htm

So, Jack Foster, AKA: Abbot, you are full of
evil pig shit.

Vicegerent

[magneto]

Post by Vicegerent
This article is equally applicable to Canada,
and the fake judicial system of Canada
THE ILLUSION OF LAW AND JUSTICE

[snip]

Vice,
Whether you actually find a loophole to avoid paying all your taxes or
not, in the end it boils down to this: The government *still* wants
some of your money and has more guns than you do. You either fight back
against those guns, or hand over the money they demand, or convince
them to leave you alone.

I know you're trying to accomplish the third, but since most judges
(ie. lawyers) have unwaivering faith in the spirit of those tax laws,
whether they are good laws or not, you will have *better luck*
excluding yourself as a cash cow by jumping through the known "legal"
loopholes (ie. the loopholes the lawyers and politicians have created)
than convincing them the whole tax system is null and void because of
one interpretation of the terminology.

That isn't to say that it's impossible to convince some unsuspecting
judge, but it's very *unlikely* anyone trying it will succeed. And
if/when they are UNsuccessful, at the very *least* they have to pay
court fees and interest on the late tax, along with the tax itself (or
face the gubberment's guns).

The kind of convincing tactics you keep referring to here is a kind of
direct insult to a judge when the case goes to court. It's like a
professor telling a student his whole scantron exam is worthless
because he accidentally starting filling in circles on line 2. Judges
don't rule simply on the face value of law, they also judge on their
interpretation of the spirit of those laws, and this power is part of
the job description. Telling them flat out that the tax laws are
fraudulent is telling them they have been waaaay off base all this time
and thus, clearly, aren't fit to perform their duties as a judge. Do
you really think this is a convincing argument?

[Vicegerent]

Nice try, you cowardly conniving PRICK,
Magneto; however, more and more Canadians
and Americans are learning the facts about
the evil scheme that the Popes of Rome
have foisted upon them for the last 1,000
years (starting with their ancestors in Europe).

And that whole scheme is based upon FICTION
and MAKE-BELIEVE, just as depicted in the
fairy tale - The Wonderful Wizard Of OZ.

And FICTION can be so easily overcome by
a very small measure of TRVTH.

And, that is what Warman's method of filing
a T1 (or 1040), where $0.00 tax is always
the bottom line, is all about - TRUTH.

You wrote: Telling them flat out that the tax

laws are fraudulent is telling them they have
been waaaay off base all this time and thus,
clearly, aren't fit to perform their duties as a
judge. Do you really think this is a convincing
argument?

It isn't an ARGUMENT. An argument is only
made where there is no PROOF, and there is
plenty of proof to show that the whole
government scheme, in Canada and the USA
is a total fraud and extortion program from
the GET GO. TRUTH needs NO argument.

Vicegerent

[Richard Macdonald]

Post by Vicegerent
Nice try, you cowardly conniving PRICK,
Magneto; however, more and more Canadians
and Americans are learning the facts about
the evil scheme that the Popes of Rome
have foisted upon them for the last 1,000
years (starting with their ancestors in Europe).
And that whole scheme is based upon FICTION
and MAKE-BELIEVE, just as depicted in the
fairy tale - The Wonderful Wizard Of OZ.
And FICTION can be so easily overcome by
a very small measure of TRVTH.
And, that is what Warman's method of filing
a T1 (or 1040), where $0.00 tax is always
the bottom line, is all about - TRUTH.

You wrote: Telling them flat out that the tax

laws are fraudulent is telling them they have
been waaaay off base all this time and thus,
clearly, aren't fit to perform their duties as a
judge. Do you really think this is a convincing
argument?
It isn't an ARGUMENT. An argument is only
made where there is no PROOF, and there is
plenty of proof to show that the whole
government scheme, in Canada and the USA
is a total fraud and extortion program from
the GET GO. TRUTH needs NO argument.

BTW, is a common law oral contract real?

[Abbot]

Post by Vicegerent
Nice try, you cowardly conniving PRICK,
Magneto; however, more and more Canadians
and Americans are learning the facts about
the evil scheme that the Popes of Rome
have foisted upon them for the last 1,000
years (starting with their ancestors in Europe).

Abbot) The fact is Eldon, your post is just something you picked up off
somebody else's website with no real consideration whether it is true
or not.

You don't have the knowledge base, the research skills or the mental
stability necessary to discern whether you are passing on the truth or
not.

All you care about is passing on anti-government theories in the vain
hope you will one day, somehow, pay government for what is really your
own mess.

Post by Vicegerent
And that whole scheme is based upon FICTION
and MAKE-BELIEVE, just as depicted in the
fairy tale - The Wonderful Wizard Of OZ.
And FICTION can be so easily overcome by
a very small measure of TRVTH.
And, that is what Warman's method of filing
a T1 (or 1040), where $0.00 tax is always
the bottom line, is all about - TRUTH.

You wrote: Telling them flat out that the tax

laws are fraudulent is telling them they have
been waaaay off base all this time and thus,
clearly, aren't fit to perform their duties as a
judge. Do you really think this is a convincing
argument?
It isn't an ARGUMENT. An argument is only
made where there is no PROOF, and there is
plenty of proof to show that the whole
government scheme, in Canada and the USA
is a total fraud and extortion program from
the GET GO. TRUTH needs NO argument.
Vicegerent

[magneto]

Post by Vicegerent
Nice try, you cowardly conniving PRICK,
Magneto; however, more and more Canadians
and Americans are learning the facts about
the evil scheme that the Popes of Rome
have foisted upon them for the last 1,000
years (starting with their ancestors in Europe).

Nice attempt to take us down a new topic before finishing the one at
hand.
Look, in that post I didn't say whether the tax system was good or bad.
In fact, put your fists down for moment, I tend to *agree* with you
that the whole tax system is geared to establish power for the rich,
and serves to perpetuate a two-class society. In fact, a lot of
conservatives would agree that less tax is better.

Now, put aside the *algorithm* you keep professing (how one should fill
out a tax form), just for a moment, and look at what the possible
outcomes are *after* you file it (and these aren't necessarily the very
next thing that can happen after filing):
A - you succeed: they send back any tax collected throughout the year,
maybe even attached to some summary statement confirming you owe
nothing
B - they take you to court because they disagree with the return you
filed and want the taxes they calculated you owe
C - they put you in prison as a form of punishment
D - they garnish your wages
E - they freeze your bank accounts

You can run through that list and claim anything but A is
fear-mongering, false, wrong, etc. The point remains that they are real
possibilities and each has it's probability of occuring. It's nice to
focus on A occuring, just like people who buy lottery tickets also tend
to focus on winning. But a good strategy can't just focus on complete
success, that kind of shallow planning will backfire on you quickly.
You have to consider what the likelihood is of having the other
outcomes take place, and how to deal with them (or better yet, prevent
them from happening at all).

If I filed my return the way you keep describing it (or refering to
someone else who describes it), it doesn't tell me at all what can
likely go WRONG with the process. There's no *backup plan*. There's
only a one-shot list of instructions that, *if* everyone follows suit,
will yield a you-owe-$0 result.

If you really want to convince people that what you are describing is
truth and works, then you can't simply present it, declare it as truth,
and call everyone who doesn't see what you see an idiot. You are
*presenting* it poorly and, because we're human, presentation counts.

Post by Vicegerent
And FICTION can be so easily overcome by
a very small measure of TRVTH.

yes yes, and a large dark room can be lit with just the smallest bit of
light. No one will deny this. The problem is that should you, or anyone
trying this filing method, find themselves before a judge to defend
their return, the judge's definition of truth may not match your
definition of truth. In a perfect world, sure, the actual truth would
be so painfully obvious and everyone would do the right thing and maybe
the judge would take off his glasses and say "oh my, why didn't I see
it that way before, I'm so sorry, you're free to go". But guess what?
there is no guarentee that everyone will see eye to eye on this matter.
This means that simply stating the truth will not suffice, at least no
in this system. The *presentation* of the truth, ie. the translation of
your description of truth into a language (and I don't just mean plain
old "english") that the judge will understand, is just as important.

Post by Vicegerent
It isn't an ARGUMENT. An argument is only
made where there is no PROOF,

In a perfect world, I'd agree with you. In the perfect world, simply
presenting a piece of evidence to any two people would cause them both
to perceive the evidence the same way, so no argument would be required
to communicate one's interpretation to the other person: they'd already
have the same interpretation. But in present reality people don't
automatically see the same thing everyone else does when they look at
something. An argument can be required even when there *is* proof,
because one will see proof from a piece of evidence and the other will
interpret it as something else. The argument is required to communicate
the different interpretations to one another, hopefully in a way that
both can relate to, and the stronger argument will [hopefully] win over
the weaker argument.

Post by Vicegerent
and there is
plenty of proof to show that the whole
government scheme, in Canada and the USA
is a total fraud and extortion program from
the GET GO.

Let's say a couple of mobsters break into your home and steal some of
your belongings. Let's say you managed to take a picture or video tape
it. Now you have proof that a wrong has been done. What purpose does it
serve to take that picture/video straight to the mob? If truth needs no
argument, you shouldn't have to say a thing, just show them the video
and they'll return your things, right? wrong. But even if you do argue
with them, it still does no good. They want to keep your stuff, they
have the guns, you don't. You can project the video on a wall, paint
the picture on a billboard, even tell your story to can.politics...the
result will be the same whether it's right or wrong.


Now, you're not going to tie this conversation off again with a
cowardly statement like "well, I'm just posting the truth here for all
to see...if you don't want to believe it then have fun submitting
yourselves as slaves to the system when you don't have to"??? Every
time you do that you lose more credibility and actually encourages
people to stay away from this filing idea. Is that your goal?

[Abbot]

Post by magneto

Post by Vicegerent
Nice try, you cowardly conniving PRICK,
Magneto; however, more and more Canadians
and Americans are learning the facts about
the evil scheme that the Popes of Rome
have foisted upon them for the last 1,000
years (starting with their ancestors in Europe).

Nice attempt to take us down a new topic before finishing the one at
hand.
Look, in that post I didn't say whether the tax system was good or bad.
In fact, put your fists down for moment, I tend to *agree* with you
that the whole tax system is geared to establish power for the rich,
and serves to perpetuate a two-class society. In fact, a lot of
conservatives would agree that less tax is better.
Now, put aside the *algorithm* you keep professing (how one should fill
out a tax form), just for a moment, and look at what the possible
outcomes are *after* you file it (and these aren't necessarily the very
A - you succeed: they send back any tax collected throughout the year,
maybe even attached to some summary statement confirming you owe
nothing
B - they take you to court because they disagree with the return you
filed and want the taxes they calculated you owe
C - they put you in prison as a form of punishment
D - they garnish your wages
E - they freeze your bank accounts
You can run through that list and claim anything but A is
fear-mongering, false, wrong, etc. The point remains that they are real
possibilities and each has it's probability of occuring. It's nice to
focus on A occuring, just like people who buy lottery tickets also tend
to focus on winning. But a good strategy can't just focus on complete
success, that kind of shallow planning will backfire on you quickly.
You have to consider what the likelihood is of having the other
outcomes take place, and how to deal with them (or better yet, prevent
them from happening at all).
If I filed my return the way you keep describing it (or refering to
someone else who describes it), it doesn't tell me at all what can
likely go WRONG with the process. There's no *backup plan*. There's
only a one-shot list of instructions that, *if* everyone follows suit,
will yield a you-owe-$0 result.
If you really want to convince people that what you are describing is
truth and works, then you can't simply present it, declare it as truth,
and call everyone who doesn't see what you see an idiot. You are
*presenting* it poorly and, because we're human, presentation counts.

Post by Vicegerent
And FICTION can be so easily overcome by
a very small measure of TRVTH.

Abbot) Eldon has to convince himself he is right, no matter how many
times he loses in court or is refuted here.

There can't be any argument about that, because if there is, when
Eldon lays his head down on his pillow at night he might just get the
notion that the blame for his ruined family, his dead wife and the
handful of detaxers he has sent to ruin is all his.

And the old boy just can't handle that.

Post by magneto
yes yes, and a large dark room can be lit with just the smallest bit of
light. No one will deny this. The problem is that should you, or anyone
trying this filing method, find themselves before a judge to defend
their return, the judge's definition of truth may not match your
definition of truth. In a perfect world, sure, the actual truth would
be so painfully obvious and everyone would do the right thing and maybe
the judge would take off his glasses and say "oh my, why didn't I see
it that way before, I'm so sorry, you're free to go". But guess what?
there is no guarentee that everyone will see eye to eye on this matter.
This means that simply stating the truth will not suffice, at least no
in this system. The *presentation* of the truth, ie. the translation of
your description of truth into a language (and I don't just mean plain
old "english") that the judge will understand, is just as important.

Post by Vicegerent
It isn't an ARGUMENT. An argument is only
made where there is no PROOF,

In a perfect world, I'd agree with you. In the perfect world, simply
presenting a piece of evidence to any two people would cause them both
to perceive the evidence the same way, so no argument would be required
to communicate one's interpretation to the other person: they'd already
have the same interpretation. But in present reality people don't
automatically see the same thing everyone else does when they look at
something. An argument can be required even when there *is* proof,
because one will see proof from a piece of evidence and the other will
interpret it as something else. The argument is required to communicate
the different interpretations to one another, hopefully in a way that
both can relate to, and the stronger argument will [hopefully] win over
the weaker argument.

Post by Vicegerent
and there is
plenty of proof to show that the whole
government scheme, in Canada and the USA
is a total fraud and extortion program from
the GET GO.

Let's say a couple of mobsters break into your home and steal some of
your belongings. Let's say you managed to take a picture or video tape
it. Now you have proof that a wrong has been done. What purpose does it
serve to take that picture/video straight to the mob? If truth needs no
argument, you shouldn't have to say a thing, just show them the video
and they'll return your things, right? wrong. But even if you do argue
with them, it still does no good. They want to keep your stuff, they
have the guns, you don't. You can project the video on a wall, paint
the picture on a billboard, even tell your story to can.politics...the
result will be the same whether it's right or wrong.
Now, you're not going to tie this conversation off again with a
cowardly statement like "well, I'm just posting the truth here for all
to see...if you don't want to believe it then have fun submitting
yourselves as slaves to the system when you don't have to"??? Every
time you do that you lose more credibility and actually encourages
people to stay away from this filing idea. Is that your goal?

[Vicegerent]

Do you realize that, as a free will man
or a free will woman, you have been
filing a T1 (Canada) or IRS 1040 (US)
INCORRECTLY ever since you started
filing income tax returns.

Save yourself possibly $$$ Thousands,
by learning the proper way to file.

The method is simple and no cost.
And it works in both Canada and the
USA. (Likely Australia, NZ, and
England also)

Form numbers are obviously going to
be different; however, the method is
identical in all countries.

http://kanata.250free.com/filingT1.htm

Vicegerent