06-08-2021, 11:19 AM
The Twelve Presumptions Of Court
For anyone who has seriously looked at and studied court procedure over the years, which not very many of us have, one of the things he will have noticed is how once the people catch onto some legal loophole or other that provides them remedy to successfully challenge a fixed and corrupt legal system, the courts will change their procedures to render the people’s process ineffective.
For example, at one time, any public officer bringing a complaint into court, like a traffic ticket, had to show up in court and present the complaint and assert the charge in person at the first hearing. In victimless traffic citations, when the alleged defendant challenged the fact that there was no damaged party through a notice back to the officer (along with sending notice to the court of this action) asking for evidence of a damaged party supporting personam jurisdiction and the officer had none, the matter was usually dismissed at the initial hearing. In many instance, the officer was advised by his legal department not to show up for the hearing. This happened to me the first time I used the “refusal for cause” process, and I didn’t have to say a word before the judge dismissed the case.
However, within a couple of years, the state court system had revised the court procedure, not requiring the officer to show up at the initial hearing which would quickly become an arraignment at which the judge was asking for a plea to an unverified complaint, so that judges could contract with and convict more innocent victims. Since most people are unfamiliar with court procedure, anyone entering a plea, when asked by the judge, automatically accepts the jurisdiction. In this way, only subject matter jurisdiction was challengeable. What this change in court procedure did was to allow a professional liar (the judge) easy access to intimidate the alleged defendant into making a mistake and accepting personam jurisdiction in the matter.
If the defendant refused to enter a plea at an arrainment hearing without explaining a reason why – such as, for example, he needed first to consult with an attorney before he could determine whether to enter a plea, which would buy some time for him to figure out what his next move would be, since the judge would allow that request before asking for the plea again in a subsequent hearing – the judge was obliged to enter a plea for him. One way or the other, the legal system was bound and determined to win this battle of nerves. But you had to know what you were doing before going in. They cannot ask for or enter a plea for a defendant until after the defendant has had access to legal counsel when requested. You just have to know to request this.
In addition to excusing the complaining officer from the initial hearing, the state courts changed the way the hearing procedure began. The judge would ask for the alleged defendant to provide his NAME for the record. If the alleged defendant answered with a name similar to the NAME on the citation, he automatically was presumed to have accepted the jurisdiction of the court. This happened to me also, and it was frustrating because I knew that the judge knew that there was a difference in capacity between the given name (which is what I gave, First Middle) and the corporate NAME (First Last or First Middle Last), but I didn't know how to show proof of the difference. Once that deed (mistake) had been done, I was caught in their snare.
My point is, the legal system is constantly revising their procedures and educating its judges in how to overcome certain objections in order to disqualify those who are seeking a remedy, using whatever remedy is the current flavour at the time. During my ordeal of fourteen months battling three separate traffic citations, it was very frustrating to try one remedy after the other and have them all fail for I didn’t know the reason why. This is why rebutting the twelve presumptions of court prior to the court date listed on the summons or citation makes sense to me. Although I cannot claim first hand knowledge of the successful use of this process, I would not hesitate to use it if pressed again.
So, let’s get down to a description and brief analysis of each of these presumptions that must be rebutted.
First, we have to realize that the legal system has put in place these twelve presumptions of court without any obligation to disclose them to the public. How they get away with that other than pure arrogance and corruption, I couldn’t say. As mentioned in the article “The American Legal System Is Not What You Think It Is,” the Bar attorneys and the judge have taken two oaths which conflict with one another. In essence, each Bar member in the court holds two capacities, one as an officer of the state, and the other as a member of a private legal guild sworn to secrecy about how they go about their business.
A Bar attorney’s first loyalty is to the legal guild, and therefore they have a built in conflict of interest. Therefore, they will endeavor to keep a traffic case on the private side of the ledger while pretending that it is on the public side. Since the attorneys and judges are both on the same page with this set up, this is fairly easy for them to do. If anyone calls them out on it, they just lie about it and say, “No, this is a pubic matter before the court. Not a private matter.” This is an important observation to keep in mind: they lie all the time. Never forget that fact if you get dragged into court.
The following information does not derive from any of my original first hand knowledge but rather from research and the assumption that it explains bitter personal experience. It arises from the research of an Australian man named Frank O’Collins who, over the years, has been tireless in looking into legal matters dealing with the Vatican. So, if you have any doubt about its authenticity, he’s your man to ask questions. I’m only acting as a messenger to deliver his message and perhaps to explain it in a way that it can be better understood. I have done my best to verify for myself everything he says, and to verify the information published in whatever sources he uses. If you wish to see one document attributed to Mr. O’Collin’s authorship, the following PDF document is titled “The History of Today’s Slavery.”
You can look up on Wikipedia the Papal Bulls of Pope Boniface VIII (Unam Sanctum in 1302) and Pope Nicholas V (Romanus Pontifex in 1455) if you have any doubt about the authenticity of those documents, using Internet sources to verify the history of the Papal Bulls that have been issued down through history.
From what I’m given to understand, just as with the “refusal for cause” process, it is necessary to return the summons or citation back to the presenter, by which doing technically shows it to be what is called “abandoned paper,” while sending a copy to the court with clear language written on the citation refusing their offer to contract, along with a notarized document rebutting the twelve presumptions that the court is making without disclosing this to the public. Next we’ll take a look at the language used to describe this process.
The definition of a presumption is “an idea that is taken to be true on the basis of probability.” In other words, in court, an assertion that is being taken as a presumption is a presumption which must be agreed to by the parties involved to be considered as true. If one party challenges the presumption to be true on the basis of probability, then all that is required to remove the presumption is a formal challenge to that presumption. The presumption then has no standing or merit in fact.
The next most important concept in this definition of a presumption is the idea of “probability.” So what is a probablity and how does it fit into a challenge of the presumption? A probability is defined as “the extent to which something is probable, the likelihood of something happening or being the case.” By definition, then, a probability has no substantive quality needing to be proven. It is only a probability of what may be, and therefore has no substance in material fact. So how do these concepts relate to how a court must view such a challenge to it’s presumptions?
A State court does not operate according to any true rule of law, but rather by presumptions or by colour of the law. Therefore, when you step into court and do not immediately, before anything else, rebut the presumptions of the private Bar Guild, then the presumptions stand as true and are considered by the court to become facts in the case. It is important to realize here that these presumptions cannot be rebutted after the fact, that is after one has had their first opportunity to rebut them. Once that opportunity has slipped by and no one has rebutted them, the presumptions become tied inextricably to the case, and thereafter are said to stand as “Truth in Commerce.” This is how all these courts work.
As such, anyone attempting to enter an affidavit rebutting any one or several of the twelve presumptions without rebutting them all at once, or an affidavit purporting to identify the so-called defendant or any other material aspect of the matter, will not be recognized by the court. The affidavit will be dismissed as irrelevant by the court. Even if it makes a case for the redemption of the defendant based upon the fact that it was not rebutted by the plaintiff! As we have been taught, an affidavit stands as truth in commerce if it is not rebutted. But in this case, because if even only one of the twelve presumptions the Bar Guild is using to bring its case is not rebutted, such an affidavit will be irrelevant, and therefore it is unnecessary for the plaintiff to rebut it!
This is why the affidavits that we have been entering into court seeking remedy have been ignored. It is because we have neglected to rebut, at the outset of the matter before anything else, all twelve of the presumptions being asserted by the Bar Guild. Therefore, according to this information, the most important thing we can do, and perhaps the only thing we need do in addition to refusing the offer to contract, is to rebut the twelve presumptions of the court. However, do not expect most courts to just lie down and accept this refutation of their authority. Some may in fact do so. Yet inevitably many courts (i.e., magistrates) will continue to attempt to contract with their victim even after it has been shown that the court has no authority to pursue the matter any further. This is where it may be beneficial to pursue intimidation of the judge by gently reminding him that he must recuse himself if he refuses to bring forth his oaths of office.
Expect magistrates to use all their powers of intimidation to keep a matter appearing to move forward. But no matter how many ways they attempt to intimidate you, always remember one thing: there are only three ways these courts can end up sending a person to jail or enforcing a final convicting judgment on a “defendant.” Those three ways are one, if you have an attorney. Two, if you are incompetent. And three, if you sign something (like a plea agreement or a final judgment outlining the penalties)! However, in order to avoid the intimidation of a court, you may have to put up with some inconvenience in order to call them on their bluff. I learned this trick from a man who gave a seminar on law and explained in detail how this worked. Fortunately his seminar was captured on video.
Readers can benefit from this man’s knowledge by viewing the following video. It is suggested that you take the time to use a computer and a rich text Wordpad file to transcribe the pertinent sections of his talk so as to have it down in black and white but also so as to not forget exactly what he said. The details are important. This section of the video begins around the 45 minute mark and last for approximately fifteen minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kliFIvZl3mY
David Straight #2 of 8
David Straight Seminar in Chicago November 2019,
Ambassador for Christ Time: 1:11:21
Those who have studied and understand American history will know full well why the Bar Guild is so hell-bent to keep everything on the private side of a legal matter. It is because the public side invokes the constitutional issues, and nothing the Bar Guild does can withstand a constitutional challenge. This is because the organic Constitution still exists in its original form and authority, and supposedy still stands in the way of foreign interference (presumed and unsubstantiated Admiralty claims) in our court system. I say “supposedly” because no one can guarantee that a court will choose to recognized such challenges.
As briefly touched on in a previous article (Concealment of Material Facts Triggers Estoppel) the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 was the point at which the republic Union of States went out of being governed as a de jure representative republic and began being ruled as a de facto democracy (simple majority rule) under Admiralty and International law. In the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 Congress incorporated a second federal government separate and distinct from the previously unincorporated original organic federal government of the republic, thereby taking control of the government away from the people and effectively making people (those who were uneducated and therefore ignorant of what just took place to change the governing mechanism within the country) the subjects of government.
The constitution that Congress created as their bylaws for its new corporation mirrored the organic Constitution for the United States of America, but without the protective teeth that the latter instrument contained in terms of personal rights of the people and limitations on the federal government’s ability to infringe those rights. That new constitution was in essence a corporate mission statement for the newly incorporated government of the District of Columbia. This new government, entirely controlled by the de facto United States Congress which created it and out of the hands of the people and thereby bypassing the original organic Constitution, was separate and superior to the District of Columbia Organization Acts of 1790 and 1801, the former of these two Acts of which initially formed the territory of the original District of Columbia as the seat of the federal government.
Therefore the original Constitution for the United States of America (1787) and its subsequent sister constitution with its Bill of Rights, the Constitution of the United States of America (1789), because there was no quorum seated after March 27, 1861 when the Congress adjourned sine die, have been temporarily suspended in favor of the United States corporation created by the District of Columbia Act of 1871 under a de facto Congress masquerading as the original jurisdiction United States Congress. (Those who wish to learn more about the specifics of these Acts are encouraged to read about their history as explained in an article The District of Columbia Act of 1871 which lays out the relatively complicated historical timeline of what took place and the meaning of each Act in a relatively brief but understandable manner.)
An interesting side note, as a result of these constitutional shenanigans, every amendment to the United States corporate constitution passed after its creation in 1871 have no bearing or effect on the organic Constitution of the United States of America which has sixteen amendments. In other words the two constitutions are separate documents referring to two separate legal realities. The reason that the amendments in the constitution for the incorporated District of Columbia Congressional corporation do not apply to the organic Constitution is quite simple: the corporate Congress has not the authority to amend the original Constitution of the unincorporated United States of America.
There are twelve key presumptions asserted by the private Bar Guilds which if unchallenged stand as true, those presumptions being:
1) the Presumption of Public Record,
2) the Presumption of Public Service,
3) the Presumption of Public Oath,
4) the Presumption of Immunity,
5) the Presumption of Summons,
6) the Presumption of Custody,
7) the Presumption of Court of Guardians,
8) the Presumption of Court of Trustees,
9) the Presumption of Government acting in two roles as Executor and Beneficiary, 10) the Presumption of Agent and Agency, 11) the Presumption of Incompetence, and 12) the Presumption of Guilt.
Presently, we will examine each of these presumptions and their rebuttal one at a time. This information is not my information but rather is the fruit of my research, and can be found at the following link to a PDF entitled Exhibit-7.pdf.
Which Must Be Overcome
For example, at one time, any public officer bringing a complaint into court, like a traffic ticket, had to show up in court and present the complaint and assert the charge in person at the first hearing. In victimless traffic citations, when the alleged defendant challenged the fact that there was no damaged party through a notice back to the officer (along with sending notice to the court of this action) asking for evidence of a damaged party supporting personam jurisdiction and the officer had none, the matter was usually dismissed at the initial hearing. In many instance, the officer was advised by his legal department not to show up for the hearing. This happened to me the first time I used the “refusal for cause” process, and I didn’t have to say a word before the judge dismissed the case.
However, within a couple of years, the state court system had revised the court procedure, not requiring the officer to show up at the initial hearing which would quickly become an arraignment at which the judge was asking for a plea to an unverified complaint, so that judges could contract with and convict more innocent victims. Since most people are unfamiliar with court procedure, anyone entering a plea, when asked by the judge, automatically accepts the jurisdiction. In this way, only subject matter jurisdiction was challengeable. What this change in court procedure did was to allow a professional liar (the judge) easy access to intimidate the alleged defendant into making a mistake and accepting personam jurisdiction in the matter.
If the defendant refused to enter a plea at an arrainment hearing without explaining a reason why – such as, for example, he needed first to consult with an attorney before he could determine whether to enter a plea, which would buy some time for him to figure out what his next move would be, since the judge would allow that request before asking for the plea again in a subsequent hearing – the judge was obliged to enter a plea for him. One way or the other, the legal system was bound and determined to win this battle of nerves. But you had to know what you were doing before going in. They cannot ask for or enter a plea for a defendant until after the defendant has had access to legal counsel when requested. You just have to know to request this.
In addition to excusing the complaining officer from the initial hearing, the state courts changed the way the hearing procedure began. The judge would ask for the alleged defendant to provide his NAME for the record. If the alleged defendant answered with a name similar to the NAME on the citation, he automatically was presumed to have accepted the jurisdiction of the court. This happened to me also, and it was frustrating because I knew that the judge knew that there was a difference in capacity between the given name (which is what I gave, First Middle) and the corporate NAME (First Last or First Middle Last), but I didn't know how to show proof of the difference. Once that deed (mistake) had been done, I was caught in their snare.
My point is, the legal system is constantly revising their procedures and educating its judges in how to overcome certain objections in order to disqualify those who are seeking a remedy, using whatever remedy is the current flavour at the time. During my ordeal of fourteen months battling three separate traffic citations, it was very frustrating to try one remedy after the other and have them all fail for I didn’t know the reason why. This is why rebutting the twelve presumptions of court prior to the court date listed on the summons or citation makes sense to me. Although I cannot claim first hand knowledge of the successful use of this process, I would not hesitate to use it if pressed again.
So, let’s get down to a description and brief analysis of each of these presumptions that must be rebutted.
First, we have to realize that the legal system has put in place these twelve presumptions of court without any obligation to disclose them to the public. How they get away with that other than pure arrogance and corruption, I couldn’t say. As mentioned in the article “The American Legal System Is Not What You Think It Is,” the Bar attorneys and the judge have taken two oaths which conflict with one another. In essence, each Bar member in the court holds two capacities, one as an officer of the state, and the other as a member of a private legal guild sworn to secrecy about how they go about their business.
A Bar attorney’s first loyalty is to the legal guild, and therefore they have a built in conflict of interest. Therefore, they will endeavor to keep a traffic case on the private side of the ledger while pretending that it is on the public side. Since the attorneys and judges are both on the same page with this set up, this is fairly easy for them to do. If anyone calls them out on it, they just lie about it and say, “No, this is a pubic matter before the court. Not a private matter.” This is an important observation to keep in mind: they lie all the time. Never forget that fact if you get dragged into court.
The following information does not derive from any of my original first hand knowledge but rather from research and the assumption that it explains bitter personal experience. It arises from the research of an Australian man named Frank O’Collins who, over the years, has been tireless in looking into legal matters dealing with the Vatican. So, if you have any doubt about its authenticity, he’s your man to ask questions. I’m only acting as a messenger to deliver his message and perhaps to explain it in a way that it can be better understood. I have done my best to verify for myself everything he says, and to verify the information published in whatever sources he uses. If you wish to see one document attributed to Mr. O’Collin’s authorship, the following PDF document is titled “The History of Today’s Slavery.”
You can look up on Wikipedia the Papal Bulls of Pope Boniface VIII (Unam Sanctum in 1302) and Pope Nicholas V (Romanus Pontifex in 1455) if you have any doubt about the authenticity of those documents, using Internet sources to verify the history of the Papal Bulls that have been issued down through history.
From what I’m given to understand, just as with the “refusal for cause” process, it is necessary to return the summons or citation back to the presenter, by which doing technically shows it to be what is called “abandoned paper,” while sending a copy to the court with clear language written on the citation refusing their offer to contract, along with a notarized document rebutting the twelve presumptions that the court is making without disclosing this to the public. Next we’ll take a look at the language used to describe this process.
The definition of a presumption is “an idea that is taken to be true on the basis of probability.” In other words, in court, an assertion that is being taken as a presumption is a presumption which must be agreed to by the parties involved to be considered as true. If one party challenges the presumption to be true on the basis of probability, then all that is required to remove the presumption is a formal challenge to that presumption. The presumption then has no standing or merit in fact.
The next most important concept in this definition of a presumption is the idea of “probability.” So what is a probablity and how does it fit into a challenge of the presumption? A probability is defined as “the extent to which something is probable, the likelihood of something happening or being the case.” By definition, then, a probability has no substantive quality needing to be proven. It is only a probability of what may be, and therefore has no substance in material fact. So how do these concepts relate to how a court must view such a challenge to it’s presumptions?
A State court does not operate according to any true rule of law, but rather by presumptions or by colour of the law. Therefore, when you step into court and do not immediately, before anything else, rebut the presumptions of the private Bar Guild, then the presumptions stand as true and are considered by the court to become facts in the case. It is important to realize here that these presumptions cannot be rebutted after the fact, that is after one has had their first opportunity to rebut them. Once that opportunity has slipped by and no one has rebutted them, the presumptions become tied inextricably to the case, and thereafter are said to stand as “Truth in Commerce.” This is how all these courts work.
As such, anyone attempting to enter an affidavit rebutting any one or several of the twelve presumptions without rebutting them all at once, or an affidavit purporting to identify the so-called defendant or any other material aspect of the matter, will not be recognized by the court. The affidavit will be dismissed as irrelevant by the court. Even if it makes a case for the redemption of the defendant based upon the fact that it was not rebutted by the plaintiff! As we have been taught, an affidavit stands as truth in commerce if it is not rebutted. But in this case, because if even only one of the twelve presumptions the Bar Guild is using to bring its case is not rebutted, such an affidavit will be irrelevant, and therefore it is unnecessary for the plaintiff to rebut it!
This is why the affidavits that we have been entering into court seeking remedy have been ignored. It is because we have neglected to rebut, at the outset of the matter before anything else, all twelve of the presumptions being asserted by the Bar Guild. Therefore, according to this information, the most important thing we can do, and perhaps the only thing we need do in addition to refusing the offer to contract, is to rebut the twelve presumptions of the court. However, do not expect most courts to just lie down and accept this refutation of their authority. Some may in fact do so. Yet inevitably many courts (i.e., magistrates) will continue to attempt to contract with their victim even after it has been shown that the court has no authority to pursue the matter any further. This is where it may be beneficial to pursue intimidation of the judge by gently reminding him that he must recuse himself if he refuses to bring forth his oaths of office.
Expect magistrates to use all their powers of intimidation to keep a matter appearing to move forward. But no matter how many ways they attempt to intimidate you, always remember one thing: there are only three ways these courts can end up sending a person to jail or enforcing a final convicting judgment on a “defendant.” Those three ways are one, if you have an attorney. Two, if you are incompetent. And three, if you sign something (like a plea agreement or a final judgment outlining the penalties)! However, in order to avoid the intimidation of a court, you may have to put up with some inconvenience in order to call them on their bluff. I learned this trick from a man who gave a seminar on law and explained in detail how this worked. Fortunately his seminar was captured on video.
Readers can benefit from this man’s knowledge by viewing the following video. It is suggested that you take the time to use a computer and a rich text Wordpad file to transcribe the pertinent sections of his talk so as to have it down in black and white but also so as to not forget exactly what he said. The details are important. This section of the video begins around the 45 minute mark and last for approximately fifteen minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kliFIvZl3mY
David Straight #2 of 8
David Straight Seminar in Chicago November 2019,
Ambassador for Christ Time: 1:11:21
Those who have studied and understand American history will know full well why the Bar Guild is so hell-bent to keep everything on the private side of a legal matter. It is because the public side invokes the constitutional issues, and nothing the Bar Guild does can withstand a constitutional challenge. This is because the organic Constitution still exists in its original form and authority, and supposedy still stands in the way of foreign interference (presumed and unsubstantiated Admiralty claims) in our court system. I say “supposedly” because no one can guarantee that a court will choose to recognized such challenges.
As briefly touched on in a previous article (Concealment of Material Facts Triggers Estoppel) the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 was the point at which the republic Union of States went out of being governed as a de jure representative republic and began being ruled as a de facto democracy (simple majority rule) under Admiralty and International law. In the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 Congress incorporated a second federal government separate and distinct from the previously unincorporated original organic federal government of the republic, thereby taking control of the government away from the people and effectively making people (those who were uneducated and therefore ignorant of what just took place to change the governing mechanism within the country) the subjects of government.
The constitution that Congress created as their bylaws for its new corporation mirrored the organic Constitution for the United States of America, but without the protective teeth that the latter instrument contained in terms of personal rights of the people and limitations on the federal government’s ability to infringe those rights. That new constitution was in essence a corporate mission statement for the newly incorporated government of the District of Columbia. This new government, entirely controlled by the de facto United States Congress which created it and out of the hands of the people and thereby bypassing the original organic Constitution, was separate and superior to the District of Columbia Organization Acts of 1790 and 1801, the former of these two Acts of which initially formed the territory of the original District of Columbia as the seat of the federal government.
Therefore the original Constitution for the United States of America (1787) and its subsequent sister constitution with its Bill of Rights, the Constitution of the United States of America (1789), because there was no quorum seated after March 27, 1861 when the Congress adjourned sine die, have been temporarily suspended in favor of the United States corporation created by the District of Columbia Act of 1871 under a de facto Congress masquerading as the original jurisdiction United States Congress. (Those who wish to learn more about the specifics of these Acts are encouraged to read about their history as explained in an article The District of Columbia Act of 1871 which lays out the relatively complicated historical timeline of what took place and the meaning of each Act in a relatively brief but understandable manner.)
An interesting side note, as a result of these constitutional shenanigans, every amendment to the United States corporate constitution passed after its creation in 1871 have no bearing or effect on the organic Constitution of the United States of America which has sixteen amendments. In other words the two constitutions are separate documents referring to two separate legal realities. The reason that the amendments in the constitution for the incorporated District of Columbia Congressional corporation do not apply to the organic Constitution is quite simple: the corporate Congress has not the authority to amend the original Constitution of the unincorporated United States of America.
There are twelve key presumptions asserted by the private Bar Guilds which if unchallenged stand as true, those presumptions being:
1) the Presumption of Public Record,
2) the Presumption of Public Service,
3) the Presumption of Public Oath,
4) the Presumption of Immunity,
5) the Presumption of Summons,
6) the Presumption of Custody,
7) the Presumption of Court of Guardians,
8) the Presumption of Court of Trustees,
9) the Presumption of Government acting in two roles as Executor and Beneficiary, 10) the Presumption of Agent and Agency, 11) the Presumption of Incompetence, and 12) the Presumption of Guilt.
Presently, we will examine each of these presumptions and their rebuttal one at a time. This information is not my information but rather is the fruit of my research, and can be found at the following link to a PDF entitled Exhibit-7.pdf.