Custom Search
Who is the Real Proscutor? Enough is Enough, Bringing Unjust Matters to a Clsoe
From Lynn
June 20, 2013
http://blog.ucadia.com/
Enough is Enough, Bringing Unjust Matters to a Close
_________________________________________________________________________________
Please download MP3 Audio Broadcast of this Blog > here (61 min 20.9 Mb)
_________________________________________________________________________________
If you haven’t had a chance to listen to the previous audios or had a chance to read the previous blogs on Ucadia, and this is the first time that you have come to this blog and these audios, I hope you take the time at the very least to read the blogs for the last couple of weeks and listen to the last few audios.
First off, I will be mentioning some of the material of last week. Before I get into that, the reason that I have chosen the topic this week of Enough is Enough, Bringing Unjust Matters to a Close, is that for many who have encountered injustice when they have faced the courts, for many that have seen the evil underbelly of a system that pretends to be law, the process that you may have gone through, even just to extricate and clear yourself of what may have been thrown against you can be a trial of months, sometimes years and an experience that is life-searing, an experience that changes your life in many cases forever.
In that process and in that trial given that there is a huge amount of information out there; and I must say the white noise and the hysteria and screeching has never been greater. I have to tell you that in terms of Ucadia people’s negativity has never been more absurd. People are not reading, but throwing whatever they can at it. Some might say, “Oh, it’s Masonic imaging. Or, it’s false information. Or it’s disinformation.” There is this desperation out there that people do not read, they do not listen, they do not think. Why would that be?
Two weeks ago we outlined 10 points of relief and 10 facts when we move forward and consider any matter that we find ourselves before the courts. They were straight forward and they were clear. The first was the fact that truth, an obvious truth, often takes time and when we do reveal the truth, it hurts. The second fact was that those people who work as judges, magistrates, prosecutors, attorneys and sheriffs by definition are not evil people. Put them in the system and they absolutely work for the system. But, when we talk about these things we said we absolutely are focusing on the broken system and not on the people. The third fact was that the system is broken. Any system that puts millions of people in prison and there are more people in prison in America today that the whole rest of the world combined. If that isn’t broken I don’t know what is.
The fourth fact we said that the people that run the system know it’s broken. Of course the attorneys know it’s broken, the judges and magistrates know it’s broken. But their excuses are no different than those people who were rounded up after WWII who worked in Auschwitz and other places of horror. “I was just following orders; I was just doing my job.” Two weeks ago thefifth fact we said was that the courts are for-profit businesses; they are corporations no different than your local bank or your local real estate agent. That is an absolute fact that is easily supported when one goes and sees that as businesses they are registered as businesses. In some places it’s more transparent that they are registered businesses. In Australia, for example, you can go and find the courts are registered businesses through the ABN system. In other places it’s a little more difficult. But, they are all for-profit corporations now and they are not original courts. That is an absolute fact.
The seventh fact we said two weeks ago was that the main weapons for the courts to control you are through fear and intimidation, through imaging as a key part. Tonight when we speak of Enough is Enough, bringing unjust matters to a close you will just how strong that imaging is. When we talk about that final revelation of what we are dealing with. The eighth fact we said is the secondary weapon courts are promoting is your incompetence and your dishonor. They want you to argue and you will see in a moment why argument is their “get out of trouble card” when you get up and you are belligerent. They want you to be belligerent and that is why they have had so many people out there promoting your going in and fighting and denying. They want you to be belligerent as that gives them their opportunity to go through.
The ninth fact we said is the courts know they are committing fraud; they know this. They will do anything to maintain the veil of public ignorance which is why I believe that the hysteria, the disinformation, the screaming at the moment out there has never been more shrill. We are at the cusp of realizing exactly what it is, who we are and how to conduct ourselves. The tenth is that as the courts are for profit businesses and create case numbers and a legal person of unlimited liability which is an absurdity and because they are creating that and doing that, they rarely, if ever, back down. They will fight to keep their money, their business, to keep the case alive.
Those are the 10 facts we listed and then we went through the 10 points of relief. [See article below] Then last week, the topic was Ending the Last Curse of the Legal Pirates. We asked ourselves some very, very simple questions. These were questions that, because people bog us down with so many facts and so much information and because it all seems so complex and because people keep up off balance, whether we are in court or we are trying to find a solution. We miss the most obvious of truths and the first is that we have the absolute right to ask the question in any court we go to: “Will you be hearing this matter without prejudice?” There is no court in any country in the world, if the answer is in the negative, “No, I am not going to hear this matter without prejudice,” that is then a true court. By refusal to answer, by obfuscation, by delay, by trickery, if you are brought before a place that has the name ‘court’ on it somewhere and the man or woman in front of you refuses to hear the matter without prejudice, then that is abuse of power. That is an action that they cannot justify. Once they refuse to hear a matter without prejudice, it cannot be a court, it is an inquisition. It is torture. It is unjust. They know it, you know it and anyone who hears such an admission knows it as well.
The last veil is the impression that when you are brought before these courts that there is some semblance of justice. When they refuse to hear the matter without prejudice there is no justice, there is no court, and there is no law. The second question we have if they say “yes” to hearing the matter without prejudice, is to say, “Can I have your oath on that?” Bind them to their oath and get them to promise, not just to say they are going to hear the matter without prejudice, but bound them to an oath as the fiduciary. If they say “yes” there should be no objections. You are not asking questions that are out-of-bounds.
We said this last week is that bias in their own procedures is what causes a case to be withdrawn or dropped. Bias is one of the fundamental errors and they cannot adjudicate a matter in any order or any sentence derived from that will be null and void on the fact of the defect of bias. So, they cannot proceed with bias where it is clear that the issue of bias has been brought up. If they refuse to give an oath, they are proceeding without an oath, then they are breaking their own procedures and that is failure of due process. The third question we raised and we are modifying this slightly in the conversation tonight was “Do you have an interest, do you have any financial interest in this matter?”
Know that the courts are a business and that the magistrate or judge is an independent contractor who picks up that piece of business and has a financial interest.
Tonight we will bring all that into context about how we might conduct ourselves to bring such matters to a close. That is why I raise the topic tonight of Enough is Enough. There are a million things that I want to work on in Ucadia. I have been working on the sacred texts of Tara, on the second book of Tara and the restoration of the old parables, the first stories 2600 years ago that became the foundation of western law and spread across through China, through Asia and America. That is what I want to be working on. I want to be working on Bibliographe. I want to be working on the administrative and fiduciary canons, finishing what I set out to do. I don’t want to be going back and having to deal with what people are raising when they say they go to court and the courts are willfully biased, have unclean hands and fail to follow their own procedures. I don’t want to hear that is the reality.
Restore the Law, Heal the Law not Injure the Law
I am not here to attack a system, injure the law; I am here to do whatever I can to restore the law. I have had enough as you have. I have had enough of hearing this incompetence. I have had enough of the disinformation agents that trick people and hide the truth from people and send them down false rabbit trails. I’ve had enough. Before we get into the key revelations of tonight, let me say this, and I have said this a few times. But, let me say this so that it is absolutely clear: the last refuge of the coward, the traitor, the assassin is to wrap themselves in the flag and say that what they did was for national security, what they did was for justice. That is, and I’m sure you would all agree, absolute horse shit. It’s crap. Why do I say that, before we continue? Because it is traditionally the shrill of those exposed as frauds, pirates, criminals to argue that it is we who are causing the injury and by exposing it we are the ones committing the crime.
They did this the other day when the extent of the unlawful monitoring that is occurring across the world into people’s private lives was exposed. They are trolling for massive amounts of information and instead of addressing the issue of government over–reach, once again they went after the ones who revealed it, that they had broken the laws, that they had breached national security and jeopardized the safety of the country. Let’s put that in context. Here we have this global battle going on and we hear in the media that there are groups around the world that are threatening the stability of societies with cyber wars and all of a sudden we discover the one causing the most damage out there are agencies within the United States. Instead of admitting what they have done, that they are saying that this revelation ‘weakens’ our country. That is mind-numbing. It is absolute insanity but they think that they can get away with it.
For twenty-eight years of researching and writing Ucadia and the almost 1,000,000 pages associated with the websites, is to present a comprehensive, detailed and complete model of society, of law, of tools which creates the ability to restore the law and to heal society and to help society and to transform this madness. If only the nihilists and people affected with mind virus would wake up. No one can accuse Ucadia or me or being anti-social, someone trying to walk around the law. We have designed and have taken years to do this, the criminal code. We have processed dozens of different law statutes in history to present a way of dealing with criminal matters. We did this with the civil code. We did this with the judicial code.
The canons on the website www.one-heaven.org take the maxims of law from the beginning of society and bring them together in one form. No rational, sensible man or woman could argue that this is about perverting the courts of justice. It’s the opposite; it’s restoring the law. Enough is enough! Stop putting people in jail for profit. Stop making money off crime. Stop attacking your own people and stop freeing people who murder and hurt people. Stop putting the people who have no violence in prison. It’s got to stop! Stop destroying your own countries and stop being traitors to your own flag. Stop being cowards, above all, and stand up and believe in something, anything in your background and your life. If you ever believed in law, if you ever believed in something better, then for goodness’ sakes stop being a coward and pretending that you have no ability and you can’t do anything about the system, that you are just doing your job.
The origins of the present Court processes
What can we do when we are faced with going to magistrate’s court, district court or any of their corporate businesses masquerading as courts? Let’s go back to a topic we covered a few weeks ago. We have covered this, in fact quite some time ago when we discussed the nature of writs. It is how cases used to be brought forward and how justice used to work. It is how the laws that are still on the books work today. If you think about a case as opposed to how it is presented to you now, if you were to read Lord Blackstone’s Commentaries on the laws of England, a seminal work that summarizes the way the law was by the end of the 18th century. What you see was a clear set of processes. I am not arguing that the processes were necessarily fair, even then. But there was clearly a set of processes.
The first thing that brought about a cause, an action in law, was that some information regarding an unlawful act was brought, or a formal complaint was brought. One of those two things occurred. Then if you look at the procedure under Blackstone, there was an examination. There may have been an arrest if there was someone in the act of committing an offense. It could be that we had information or we were led to believe that someone was acting unlawfully, so an arrest was made based on that information. Or, someone complained that they saw someone commit an act. One of those two ways. Then there was an examination of that evidence. If the evidence before a jury, a grand jury, appeared to warrant the matter to proceed then a bill was issued. Actually that was 19th century. Under Blackstone it was called an Original Writ. In America it was called a bill. In England it was called an original writ or a writ original. That is the instrument that began the process.
By the 19th century, once the Bank of England had gained control of the British Empire by bankrupting it, we saw the introduction of the modern system of justice that we see today. It is summary justice, streamlined justice where the long-winded processes of the 18th century were condensed to speed up justice and make it more efficient. After the Bank of England had introduced centralized records to treat people as commercial Admiralty goods under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Acts of 1836 and then in 1837, (plus the British Vessel Registration Act of 1845) the revision of the courts began with an act called the Indictable Offenses Act of 1848 under Victoria, C42.
What the Indictable Offenses Act did was it brought the laws in Britain under a similar design as the laws of America, but streamlined them. So, again, if there was information now it became a charge or a complaint and that would be brought before a grand jury. Then a bill of indictment would be issued and forms were prescribed that had to be followed. If those forms were not used, not valid, if the form under the statute of a valid warrant was not followed, then it was not a valid warrant. One of those forms was the Certificate of Indictment being found. That is to say, if a true indictment was issued from a grand jury after a complaint was lodged—think of that: complaint, the action of the grand jury, bill of indictment and then a certificate of indictment. So a number of steps had to be in place for the matter to move forward.
What the Indictable Offenses Act and its amendment in 1857 introduced at this point was one form of relief that remains in place both within the United States as it does in every location that still derives the essence of its law from this system, from this invention of this system of summary justice from 1848. From 1857 and Summary Jurisdiction Act 1857 (c.43) it is the concept of ‘frivolous.’ If there was a frivolous action brought, then the one accused had the right to immediately appeal to a higher court on an Affidavit of Facts for a rule if the magistrate or judge upon identifying it as being frivolous did not discharge the matter. So, it introduced a number of points. It said while we streamline this method and we have eradicated the concept of original writ, it is now fully commercial in the form of a bill, if the charges or complaint in this process were frivolous, then you could appeal to the higher court on an affidavit of facts for an immediate ruling to have the matter discharged. You could immediately change to a different venue if the magistrate or judge refused to act and dismiss the matter.
I’ll get to the key point in a moment; I ma just giving you the background. People are out there and making claims and saying all kinds of things, recommending you ‘click your heels’, write this 30-page document, or whatever they are doing, one of the frequent things that are missed include the fact that there is documentary evidence, there is statutes, codes, ordinances, judicial procedures and other guidelines that you can source and refer to as evidence of a magistrate or judge or court failing their own rules.
After 1848 and 1857 we had the creation of the first private "for business" court in the British Empire with the Supreme Court Act of 1873. As a brief aside, whenever you hear the phrase "reserve my rights", this is the date and implies you wish to be heard in a public forum, not private i.e. prior to 1873. It still puts you under Summary Jurisdiction, but not under the private "for profit" courts.
Then we had a major update which was in 1879 in the Summary Jurisdiction Act c.49 and this key act which is more than 64 pages long and is the longest of all the Summary Jurisdiction Acts ever created under the British law in the 19th century, is where the entire system was made commercial. Again in 1879 it streamlined itself by allowing some of the previous requirements such as the grand jury step to be obviated and in 1881 in the SummaryJurisdiction Process Act it took it a step further to the modern system where, providing judges were able to produce a signed endorsement in the
lynn@lawlearners.org