[ [ [ [ ...S T E L L E R G R A M... ] ] ] ]
- LAW REPORTS O(H) . O(h). O(h).
or I wish I'd not said that!
'You have to read between the lines (to get the meaning of the Act)
Stated by the (Learned) Judge in a recent Court Case
[ H'm. Is he now attempting to revise the words of Eddie
Wilberforce ? Eddie wrote in 1881 a major work on this matter simply
STATUTE LAW, THE PRINCIPLES WHICH GOVERN THE CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATIONS OF STATUTES which stated on page 103, "Thus the intention
of the Legislature is not to be made the subject of guess-work or of
speculation, nor is it to be inferred from any other materials than
those which are found within the statute. The Courts are not to 'fish
out what may possibly have been the intention of the Legislature' or
to speculate on the intention of the Legislature when the words it
has used are plain, or to draw any general inferences from the nature
of the objects dealth with by a statute etc. etc. ]
This was at the hearing wherein the first STELLERGRAM was presented
to a Crown Prosecutor in a Canadian Courtroom. The Judge, after being
invited to read the document which was an offer to settle the matter
at hand "IN THE FACT", looked over his glasses at the defendants and
said "This document will not be entered into in my courtroom."
One cannot enter an offer to settle the case into evidence, if the
judge doesn't want one to? I wonder whose law is being used here?
To help you understand some of the terms appearing now, it would
help you if you log on to the following site...
http://numismaticrareuscoin.com/nbn/allcaps.html ... and print it out
so that you can refer to it.
The information on this site is about ones name and the use of it
thereof. However it leads into quite a bit of information and
research about what is 'a legal fiction'. It also explains that while
something maybe 'legal' it is not necessarily lawful. Thus a legal
fiction could be alright in court if everyone there agrees to that
fiction. If someone therein does not agree, however, then you would
have to deal with the matter IN THE FACT.
If something is written IN THE FACT, the pronouns do not modify
the nouns and change them into verbs. Nouns are nouns, pronouns are
pronouns, verbs are verbs and are only written in the present tense,
thus they are facts. This information is liable to depress lawyers
who maybe readint his since they have become very comfortable with
their world of 'Legal Fiction'. Once they know of this information,
they will be unable to practice law 'in the legal fiction' manner in
which they do at present and could well have to seek another
profession in which to perform, such as mutual funds sales, or real
estate sales or even driving a cab. Judges, prosecuters, etc. , the
whole profession is involved!
Every person who is involved in the legal profession has a vested
interest in the maintenance of the language that it uses, this is
natural but it could well be not in the readers best interest to not
do research into other options. This is where knowledge of 'Legal
Fiction' could be of great benefit. You will learn that in
your 'Legal Fiction' name has been established a whole World of
obligations by the Government, binding you to a whole series of
financial commitments that you were not, knowingly, a party to! It
makes for very interesting reading even if you are not too keen on
facing the truth.
What is most interesting about the whole question, however, is to
consider the expression itself. If a statement is made, especially in
court, the court will decide on the evidence presented whether it is
a true or false statement. Or to state it another way whether it is a
true statement of a lie. Or fact or fiction. Now in this document
that you can print off the website given, you can read how the legal
profession 'To ensure justice, utilises the term "Legal Fiction"'.
The term itself indicates that it is not 'fact' and may cause you a
little bit of mental gymnastics to absorb it but, be patient, there
is much more to be digested! Read the printout very carefully because
it outlines the way that one is involuntarily involved into debts
that the Government has made in your Legal Fiction name and how you
are or could be held responsible for that implied debt. As it states
in the middle of page 8..."An assumed debt is valid unless proven
otherwise." On page 10 however, there is a ray of hope since it
says..."the party desiring to raise the issue shall do so by
specific negative averment". So one solution is in all correspondence
with any agency of the government, you would clearly deny that you
are that person named in Block Capitals. Then let them prove that you
are that person who signs his or her autograph in just uppercase
Here also is another Financial Pearl that you probably were not
aware of. Did you know that when you spent money on an RRSP and you
REGISTERED IT with the Government they then regarded it as theirs,
since it is registered with them and they have now pledged it as
security on the national debt with the International Banks, which is
also the reason that you cannot also borrow against it. I recently
heard about this from an acquaintance who used to be employed as a
C.G.A. with a major Vancouver company. When he first heard about the
research that I and others were doing he told me that he wished that
he had access to this information when he had been involved in the
hurly-burly world of commerce! He also mentioned that this
information concerning your RRSP being pledged to the International
Banks came to light in New Zealand, when it declared itself Bankrupt
a few years ago. The Government had pledged those Plans as security
to those self-same Banks.
Another little gen to digest is found on page 15 of the article in
the printout. This is to note carefully one of the meanings of the
word 'Certificate' [as in birth]. 3, a document evidencing ownership
or debt. We seem to be really getting locked in to something with all
Back to the STELLERGRAM. The judge DID NOT WANT THIS DOCUMENT
ENTERED into his courtroom because he would then no longer be able to
practice law in the legal fiction that is the practice of law today.
He would have knowledge 'in the truth' and would be violating his
oath if he did not admit having knowledge. [ A comment about a recent
appearance in court by someone who was aware of these facts where the
judge was asked if he was aware that the documents/language before
him were written 'IN THE TRUTH'. Straight away the judge assigned the
case to a higher court!] This is mentioned without comment.
One indication of the importance of having knowledge of this IN
THE TRUTH - LANAGUAGE is the way in which it is being currently used
by the I.R.S. in the United States. The I.R.S. have taken their
knowledge of the correct form of language to break Trusts that are
NOT WRITTEN 'In The Fact', which means that there is no modification
of nouns by pronouns, all verbs are present tense and there is no
language written in past or future tenses. (This means that anything
that is written and is not in the present tense, is not a fact and
thus is unenforcable in court, if challanged.)
To help you realise how significant this language issue is -- be
aware that Lloyd's of London, the International Conglomerate of the
Insurance Industry, is rewriting ALL of its Policies IN THE TRUTH.
The article on the internet also mentions the name being written
in ALL CAPITALS. This is also an area worth a spot of research. Here
is a thought to aid you, in your current research. Why are names on
gravestones and in the obituary columns always written in BLOCK
CAPITALS? This of course indicates the death of someone. And read the
information about the name being written in Block Capitals?
And also...Here endeth the legal fiction!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ [there's more -- lots more...See the
Corporation Sole for more]
Demanding Justice Pro Se
Learning Law and Avoiding Lawyers
A Warning from the United States Supreme Court!
"75 to 90 percent of American Trial Lawyers are
incompetent, dishonest, or both." Chief Justice Warren Burger, US
If this statement is true, shouldn't you consider learning a little
about law yourself, even if only to keep your lawyers in line?
For the Copyright June 30 2000 Jeff:Shale, Corporation Sole