| Bible Search Key Word: Lawyers. Lk 11:45 Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also Lk 11:46 And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. Lk 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. Lk 14:3 And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? |
Lk 11:46: And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.  Lk 11:46 And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. Edward Coke (1552-1634) "The law is the surest sanctuary that a man can take, and the strongest fortress to protect the weakest of all; "Lex est tutissima cassis." "Sir Edward Coke's reinterpretation of Magna Carta provided an argument for universal liberty in England and gave American colonists a basis for their condemnation of British colonial policies." (Library of Congress) Through Coke, whose four-volume Institutes of the Laws of England was widely
read by American law students, young colonists such as John Adams, Thomas
Jefferson, and James Madison learned of the spirit of the charter and the
common law--or at least Coke's interpretation of them. Later, Jefferson would
write to Madison of Coke: "a sounder whig never wrote, nor of
profounder learning in the orthodox doctrines of the British constitution, or
in what were called English liberties."  "They (corporations) cannot commit treason, nor be outlawed or excommunicate, for they have no souls." Case of Suttons's hospital, 10 Rep. 32 More related to US Constitution Visit Coke's Pages for much more. "How long so ever it hath continued, if it be against reason, it is of no force in law." - Institutes, `Commentary upon Littleton', I. 80 "Quad Rex non debet esse sub homine, sed sub deo et Lege." (The King himself should be under no man, but under God and the Law.) "Magna Charta is such a fellow that he will have no sovereign. "Debate in the Commons, May 17, 1628. "The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose. "Semayne's Case, 5 Rep. 91. |
||||||||||||||||||
 This is very powerful information. I have been reluctant to put this in the public domain as this could be used for both positive and negative purposes. Yet, I feel the good it would do is just. This information is in no way intended to paint all lawyers in a bad light. There are some good ones out there. Yet many of them have to make a living. They do this be creating controversy where none really has to be. Further, this is *not* intended as legal advice and shall never be construed as such. Use this information for your education. The following document is a real letter that was sent in response to a friend of mine that distributed a book. He\his company were being sued as well as three of four other distributors of the book as well as the author for a million dollars in damages. I have chosen to keep the names\identites of this matter private. The law firm that sent this was a very large and successful law firm on Bay Street in Toronto. The client is\was someone who works for the Federal Government of Canada, but was suing in his "private capacity" as a "person". As of today, no further action has been taken by the lawyers out to get my friend. Can't say I know about the others. All of them used lawyers to defend themselves as far as I know and did not use this information either as far as I know. Further to this, is that the language we use everyday and know the specific meanings of words, is much different in the world of commerce and law. It is called "legalese". This is where most people get lost and confused when trying to defend themselves without the use of lawyers. If one takes the the time to study the key words mentioned below in their commercial relation, then this just becomes second nature. Like learning another language. In order to "play the game",(seeing as we are already 'in' the game, best to know the rules) one has to know the rules. Everything that involves money is in the real of commerce and is governed by a "commercial code". It is more or less the "bible" for commerce. In Canada it is call the "Bills of Exchange Act". a copy of this can be found here: http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/B-4/index.html Notice the sections that it is separated into:
Notice the word "honor". This is really important. The trick here is to always stay in honor when in commercial law. When a lawyer sends you a letter on behalf of a client. He is asking you if you would like to form a "contract" with him. To accept and get your own lawyer is a death nail in most cases. Albeit there are times when a good lawyer can really help you. When a lawyer sends you a letter in the mail on behalf of a client, it is an "offer" to contract with "him\her\them". In commerce it is called a "presentment". If you refuse, or stay silent, you will be falling into "dishonor". Not a good place to be as you now have "accepted" via acceptance of the BEA. What you always want to do is *stay in honor*. And even better, is to put the lawyer\law firm into "dishonor". i.e. you want to turn the tables around into your favor. Remember, that when someone is acting on behalf of another party, the are a "third party intervenor" between the two contracting parties. And all reality, they have no facts on the issues and everything done through them is really hearsay. So, the best you can do is to "accept" the offer, put your "terms of service to contract" on it, seal it, and send it back via registered mail. I know this works, as I have done this for a few people a number of times. I watched my friend shake of a very materialistic ex wife in a divorce and she ended up paying for all the legal costs of the divorce even though he is the one who filed for it originally. Yes, knowledge is power, but one has to know how to use it. She did not. Here is the text of the acceptance letter that was sent to these Bay Street lawyers that shut them up pretty quick. I have used X's to block out personal information. Also, some of this letter makes mention to other documents that I have not posted here but is not important to comprehend the basics of how this works. Further, to make matters worse for lawyers and others that want to soak you in the system, myself, my friends and other I know have copyrighted their name. Hence the © where it looks like a name should be. Please don't confuse this with a copyright on a real private Christian appellation for one cannot do that. One may copyright a *tradename* only. The difference is essential. Yet the power if gives in commercial negotiations is unquestionable. The XXX Inc. (my friend's company listed on the suite) c\o XXX po box XXX XXX, BC XXX XXX(postal code) April 14, 2004 Non-negotiable Attention: XXX, Dear Sister, I am in receipt of your offer to contract. Enclosed you will find a copy of a letter that was forwarded to XXX© from its ex- accountant and another letter later received from you. I do not know you or recall ever having done business with you. You sound like you are a third party intervener in a matter between XXX and some other party(ies). Is this correct? In your first paragraph, it sounds like you are asking to make a legal determination on behalf of The XXX Inc and on behalf of XXX©. Is this correct? In your second paragraph, you state: “As you may be aware........” XXX© is not aware of any legal document that you have nor information or consent from any such parties and it cannot make a legal determination to the validity of such a statement. Furthermore, You state: “it is my understanding that all parties, with the exception of XXX inc., have now consented to the form.” XXX© again has no knowledge nor has any legal document(s) to confirm the actions of such said parties. I further cannot make a legal determination about this on their behalf. Your third paragraph seems to be asking for the consent of XXX© to make a legal determination on its behalf? Is this correct? If you are wanting to contract with XXX©, enclosed you will find a valuable consideration of $1.00 for your benefit accepted with the following stipulations:
Please also be advised that the gold must be delivered first before filing this agreement into any court registry or similar public venue. Looking forward to your first installment. Respectfully, xxx, Brother of the Bond Power of attorney in the fact for: XXX© Notice the opening statement. Tells it like it is. In the letter above. you will notice that we did not go into "dishonour". Yet turned the tables around to make the law firm "perform" a certain duty. Now this letter would not mean much of it was not seals. This is done by including a "consideration" with it. This is done by the use of a one dollar stamp. Remember the whole money system is based on that fact that the money we use has NO value. It is private exchange instruments in the form of paper IOU's. Yet a stamp and gold do have value. Smart lawyers know this, or should know this. So when they come to you asking for private debt IOU's and you return with the agreement saying: "Sure, show me the gold(value) first and we can begin. Further the one dollar stamp does hold value as well. So to seal this agreement, the last thing you want to do, is to past a one dollar stamp across the top and then autograph it diagonally. One last thing here. The reason for the copyright tradename is simple. It separates you - the living flesh and blood man\woman from the fictional ALL CAPS name that is registered with the Government. It is kind of like oil and water, the two cannot mix. So when you do this, you now act as "power of attorney" over the ALL CAPS 'strawman'. The strawman is the only one that can deal in a commercial capacity in a debt\slave system. This is just a simplified introduction of these principles. Yet it will work with just basic knowledge. But be prepared for the other party to try to whitewash what you know. ALWAYS STAND YOUR GROUND. One should find out more if wanting to use this information in a real life setting. So what is in a name? Here is how one goes about separating ones' self from the fiction name and making that name a "Trade Name". One of the reasons this is done, is that if any newspaper wants to defame you by printing your name and with a corresponding story, they will have to pay you for the use of your property. So when you ask for 100 bars of 24K gold for every paper in circulation that carries your trade name, they will most likely not run a story with that name in it. As a matter of fact, they won't. I know this because I have helped a friend personally from this same kind of attack. No need to mention names, but the owner of the paper also owns a few very large TV networks. Another reason why this is done, is that anyone wanting to use it for the purpose of "making money" from it, now has to adhere to your "user agreement". It's simple really. Here is a good example; Even when you physically by a copy of say Windows XP, you don't really buy the software. You buy as "license agreement". So you get home and install the thing on your computer. At some point a window comes up and says "do you agree to the terms?" Ever try clicking *no* to see what happens?. The software won't install, or let you use it. Well, what is stopping you from exercising your own "user agreements" to your "tradename"? Lack of understanding... that is all. Imagine how many other people use your name and make some kind of "profit" from it. The following is an example of an ad placed in the legal section of a newspaper. Make sure the add runs for at least three weeks and gets notarized to the fact. GOOD FAITH PUBLIC NOTICE Be it witnessed and take Notice that the following Men and Women, 'claimants', have copy-claim on/against any name resembling His/Her own Name in any style and any derivative and/or variation thereof, as His/Hers exclusive privately owned copy-claimed TRADE NAME used for the purpose of facilitating all commercial transactions, pursuant to the Trade Mark, Copy-right and Business Names Act. The named claimant is not in the capacity or character of a PERSON as defined by Statute nor bound with any obligation, contract, promise of any kind, except by prior written authorization. Any violation(s)/violator(s) of His/Hers copy-right, Trade Name on this document, agree to the Self Executing User Agreement retained by the claimant(s) and is available upon request. John-Henry: Doe, circa 1971 A.D. Jane-Henryetta: Doe, circa 1975 A.D. Any party having any concerns with any claim made herein, must make their concerns known within (30) days from the date of first posting of this 'Good Faith Public Notice' in this public place of notice by, writing to the particular individual at mailing address via registered mail, provided hereunder, or forever accepts these claims as stated herein as fact. Full Disclosure The information above is quite advanced. One of the best and easiest things for people to understand is the right of "full disclosure". This is what the Crown has to give to someone who asks for it. Many people don't even realize they have that right. Basically, when first appearing for any kind of offence, if it is something small like a traffic offence or some kind of ticket, the judge will kind of test you. He will ask if you are "guilty" or "innocent". This is really a trick question. The thing is, how would one really know if they don't have all the facts\ allegations in front of them. So the best thing to do is to say: I can't enter a plea right now because I need full disclosure. Then right up a list of everything you can think of, the cops notes, a copy of any manual for radar gun, date of last inspection etc. In many cases the crown may not deliver and then automatically forfeits that case. Here is are a few videos of someone standing her ground because she knows "who she is" and how to express that to people that cannot cannot look her in the eyes or when they try to take her home away from her with defective legal documents. Never be fooled by a piece of paper! Video 1: 17 mins (60 megs) Video 2: 14 mins (25 megs) Video 3: 15 mins (28 megs) Video 4: 16 mins (29 megs) Or view them online at www.youtbue.com. Video clip one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szOXoSmq3ZI Video clip two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhMEfC2-S_8 Video clip three: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxq2WPMh3Q4 Video clip four: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eSxizdBNG4 |