Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

FW: * * * The Preamble * * *

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    Hello! I had to forward this to all the list members because I have experienced the truth of it and am doing more so every day as the charade of what
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 20, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello! I had to forward this to all the list members because I have
      experienced the truth of it and am doing more so every day as the
      charade of "what everybody knows" is collapsing around us.

      Here are some key words to get out of the following:
      "Since the signing of the Unanimous Declaration in 1776 the judge ceased
      to represent the king and became a civil minister liable to the acting
      sovereign party in the court."

      Now think about how a sovereign party acts in the initial moment of
      confrontation (IMOC�). And think about how witnessed actions taken in
      the manner of a subject of higher authority send a message of
      non-sovereignty, and thus invite treatment deserving of a subject and
      not a sovereign entity.

      Regards,

      FF

      -----Original Message-----
      From: James Alan Daum [mailto:JamesAlanDaum@...]
      Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 1:43 PM
      To: James Alan Daum
      Subject: Re: * * * The Preamble * * *

      I question why you sent me anything from "J.A.I.L." unless simply for
      the argumentative value since I frown upon this train of thought.

      If you wanted my opinion the following excerpt reveals the mistake that
      the ineffective intellectuals of the gray parade at J.A.I.L. make.

      **That is why the spokesperson for the judiciary, Sandra Day O'Connor,
      and others of her ilk, continually say that J.A.I.L. is out to "punish
      judges" for their routine judicial function of making decisions. They
      know it isn't factually true, but it's �the simple expedient of
      disguising a corrupt act as a routine judicial function [that]
      guarantees immunity from suit.�**

      "Making decisions" is NOT a "routine judicial function!"

      The "judicial function" of a judge in the presence of the court is to
      secure the record of judicial proceedings!

      28 U.S.C. � 459. Administration of oaths and acknowledgments
      <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000459---
      -000-.html>
      Each justice or judge of the United States may administer oaths and
      affirmations and take acknowledgments.

      There may actually be statutes, regulations or Acts of the United States
      in Congress assembled that purport to grant judges an independent
      judicial prerogative but you don't know them and I am not going to tell
      them to you. "Court Official" aside the judge is a public servant and
      must obey the law and the court.

      About two hundred and thirty-three years ago the judge represented the
      king here.

      �A COURT is defined to be a place wherein justice is judicially
      administered. And, as by our excellent constitution the sole executive
      power of the laws is vested in the person of the king, it will follow
      that all courts of justice, which are the medium by which he administers
      the laws, are derived from the power of the crown. For whether created
      by act of parliament, letters patent, or prescription, (the only methods
      of erecting a new court of judicature) the king's consent in the two
      former is expressly, and in the latter impliedly, given. In all these
      courts the king is supposed in contemplation of law to be always
      present; but as that is in fact impossible, he is there represented by
      his judges, whose power is only an emanation of the royal prerogative.�
      William Blackstone Commentaries, Book 3, Chapter 3, Page 24

      Since the signing of the Unanimous Declaration in 1776 the judge ceased
      to represent the king and became a civil minister liable to the acting
      sovereign party in the court.

      WE, THEREFORE, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in
      General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world
      for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority
      of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That
      these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be FREE AND INDEPENDENT
      STATES; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown,
      and that all political connection between them and the State of Great
      Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and
      Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace,
      contract Alliance, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and
      Things which Independent States may of right do.

      The judge is NOT the king and cannot claim Divine Right.

      SO...everyone should know now that the judge has no power or authority
      beyond what YOU grant to him for services above and beyond the duties
      mandated upon him by the above code section.

      What happened is that the attorneys managed the justice system to
      recreate the monarchy coincidentally making themselves kings.

      If you intend to dispose of these corrupt attorneys by assigning your
      jurisdiction to them then you are wasting your time and mine.

      James Alan Daum, Civilian Jurist
      Ignorantia Jus Neminem Excusat
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.