Sending a huge thank you to Gillian for the edits on Judge Dale's great
article- See Dale! I knew there was a reason that I hadn't posted it yet
:>D
Judge
Dale, Ret’d ~ How To Defeat Admiralty Courts And “The Law Of The See”
Shift Frequency May 13 2013
The Catholic word
“See” conceals the influence of the Holy Roman Church over the corrupt
corporate government and legal system.
The term “see” comes from
the Latin word “sedes”, meaning “seat”, which refers to the Episcopal throne (cathedra).
The term “Apostolic See”
can refer to any see founded by one of the Apostles, but, when
used with the definite article, it is used in the Catholic Church to refer
specifically to the see of the Bishop of Rome, whom that
Church sees as successor of Saint Peter, the Prince of the Apostles.[22] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See
Sedes
Sacrorum (Latin Sedes for
seat/see, Sacrorum for holy) otherwise known as Santa Sede and the “SS” also
known in English as “Holy See” refers to the legal apparatus as a whole by
which the Roman Catholic Pope and its Curia of Bishops claim historical
recognition as a sovereign entity with superior legal rights. (http://one-evil.org/content/entities_organizations_holy_see.html)
The Catholic Church uses two
legal personalities with which to conduct its international affairs:
the first is as an International state known as the Vatican City State,
to which the Pope is the Head of Government. The second is as the
supreme legal personality above all other legal personalities by which all
property and “creatures” are subjects.
The legal enforcability of
its first personality as an International State is constrained
by international law. The sovereign status of the Vatican City remains
dependent upon the continued recognition of an agreement known as the “Lateran Treaty” signed
between Catholic Facist Dictator and . . . Benito Mussolini in 1929 and his
political supporter Pope Pius XI. This recognition remains in defiance and
contempt to existing international laws prohibiting recognition of
rogue states and laws created by mass murdering dictators.
The legal enforcability of
the second personality of the Catholic Church as the Holy See is
dependent upon the continued adherence to legal statutes, definitions,
conventions and covenants as have been accumulated since the Middle Ages
concerning the primacy of the Pope over all property and creatures. These
statutes, conventions and covenants remain the fabric and foundation of the
modern legal system of most states in the world.
To extend its legal
strength using its second personality, the Catholic Church considers the region
controlled by every bishop a See.
Admiralty
Law
Admiralty law was introduced into England by the French
Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine while she was acting as regent for her son, King
Richard the Lionheart. She had earlier established admiralty law on the island
of Oleron (where it was published as the Rolls of Oleron) in her own lands
(although she is often referred to in admiralty law books as “Eleanor of
Guyenne”), having learned about it in the eastern Mediterranean while on a
Crusade with her first husband, King Louis VII of France. In England, special
admiralty courts handle all admiralty cases. These courts do not use the common
law of England, but are civil law courts largely based upon the Corpus
Juris Civilis of Justinian.
Admiralty courts were a
prominent feature in the prelude to the American Revolution. For example, the
phrase in the Declaration of Independence “For depriving us in many cases, of
the benefits of Trial by Jury” refers to the practice of Parliament giving the
Admiralty Courts jurisdiction to enforce The Stamp Act in the
American Colonies.[4] Because the Stamp Act was unpopular, a colonial jury was
unlikely to convict a colonist of its violation. However, because admiralty
courts did not (as is true today) grant trial by jury, a colonist accused of
violating the Stamp Act could be more easily convicted by the
Crown.
Admiralty law became part
of the law of the United States as it was gradually introduced through
admiralty cases arising after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1789.
Many American lawyers who were prominent in the American Revolution were
admiralty and maritime lawyers in their private lives. Those included are
Alexander Hamilton in New York and John Adams in Massachusetts.
In 1787 John Adams, who
was then ambassador to France, wrote to James Madison proposing that the U.S.
Constitution, then under consideration by the States, be amended to include
“trial by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land [as
opposed the law of admiralty] and not by the laws of Nations [i.e. not by the
law of admiralty]“. The result was the Seventh Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. Alexander Hamilton and John Adams were both admiralty lawyers and
Adams represented John Hancock in an admiralty case in colonial Boston
involving seizure of one of Hancock’s ships for violations of Customs
regulations. In the more modern era, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell
Holmes was an admiralty lawyer before ascending to the federal bench. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_law
The Roman Court is very
confusing – even for some judges – because it does not operate according to any
true set rules of law but rather by presumptions of
law. If these presumptions presented by the Private Bar Guild
(BAR attorneys) are not rebutted they become fact and
thereafter are said to stand as a “Truth in Commerce.” Despite
the façade, the world is a playground of commercial business and is secretly
owned by private foreign corporations.
Why is the Bar Guild so
hell-bent on keeping everything on the private side? Because the public side
invokes constitutional issues and nothing they do can withstand a
constitutional challenge. The organic Constitution still exists in its
original glory and authority and is buried in the US Printing Office.
All
amendments since 1871 do not exist. Why? It was the “corporate mission statement” for
the District of Columbia that was written in 1871 to resemble the organic
Constitution. It is that corporate mission statement that has
been amended since 1871 and chopped up as of late.
A Legal Way
To Defeat This System
Specifically, there is a
defendant living in Florida who discovered the answer to this puzzle and
properly embraced his (all caps name / strawman) by registering it
as a “Fictitious Name” with the state of Florida.
This process identified
him as having a commercial and intellectual proprietary interest in
the (all caps name). He, by entering it as such clearly on
the Public Record, successfully rebutted all (12) presumptions on the
private side of the Admiralty Court and nullified its “jurisdiction.”
What did he
do?
The Registration
of a Fictitious Name is something you might do if you wanted to open a
commercial business and you wanted to reserve a “creative name” to identify
that business. The process, however, does not obligate you to ever open
a business or to incorporate. It simply reserves the name for
your future use and as your commercial and intellectual proprietary property.
For many years patriots
have attempted to disassociate their sovereign beings from the legal fiction –
the all caps name / strawman - created by the corporate
government because this was designed to make you personally vulnerable and
convert your living being into a corporation – a thing – and the property of
the corporate government.
Certain patriots properly
decided to embrace the corporate fiction / strawman as their
own personal property by affidavit using a Financing Statement filed
under the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) as a notice to the world. This is
because an unrebutted affidavit stands as Truth in
Commerce and the government never rebuts these affidavits.
So why didn’t it work?
The patriots bypassed one
crucial step. They failed to rebut the presumptions of the private side
of the corporate government and courts that imprisoned their sweat equity
and labor.
An unrebutted presumption
stands as Truth in Commerce. Their presumption nullified
the affidavit and placed them on the private side.
There are twelve (12) key
presumptions asserted by the Private Bar Guilds, which, if left unchallenged,
stand as Truth in Commerce.
These are:
▪
The
Public Record
▪
Public
Service
▪
Public
Oath
▪
Immunity
▪
Summons
▪
Custody
▪
Court
of Guardians
▪
Court
of Trustees
▪
Government
as Executor/Beneficiary
▪
Executor
De Son Tort (not a party to)
▪
Incompetence
▪
Guilt
I’m only going to discuss
(6) of those (12) presumptions. However, Frank O’Collins did a superb job
addressing these presumptions in an expose’ titled “A history of today’s slavery” and I encourage you all to read it.
Canon 3228
(i): The Presumption Of Public Record
Any matter brought before
a lower Roman Court is a matter for the public record, when in fact it is
presumed by the Private Bar Guild as private business. Unless this presumption
is openly rebutted by filing or stating clearly on the Public Record that the
matter is to be a part of the Public Record, the matter remains on the private
side as private Bar Guild business under private Guild rules.
The defendant in this
particular case recorded on the Public Record the Registration
Certificate issued by the state of Florida, identifying his registered
ownership of the fictitious (all caps name), which proved that he was not the
alleged defendant on the Courts Docket. I believe I should refer to him as the
alleged defendant from here on.
Canon 3228
(ii), (iii) and (iv): The Presumptions Of Public Service; Oath And
Immunity.
If the Judge ignores the
alleged defendants Fictitious Name Registration entered into
the Public Record, which is clearly presented to him in open Court and then
decides to move forward with the case, he violates his public service
oath and judicial immunity under these sub-sections.
Canon 3228
(v): The Presumption Of Summons
A summons, when
unrebutted, stands as Truth in Commerce. Attendance in a Court is
usually invoked by invitation and therefore one who attends Court initiated by
a summons, warrant, subpoena or replevin bond, is presumed to accept the
position of a (defendant, juror, witness or thing) and the (jurisdiction) of
the Court.
If these instruments are
not rejected and returned, with a copy of the rejection filed clearly on the
Public Record (jurisdiction) the presumed position and the presumption of guilt
also stands as Truth in Commerce.
In this particular case
the alleged defendant rebutted his forced appearance by presenting the Judge
with the recorded registration certificate issued by Florida. This certificate
statedhe is not the defendant on the courts docket. ‘The name is
fictitious and I am the registered owner of that name under Florida law.’
Canon 3228
(vi): The Presumption Of Custody
Those who attend a Court
initiated pursuant to the command of a summons or warrant, is presumed to be
“corporate property or a thing” and therefore is liable to be detained in
custody by the Courts appointed or elected “Custodian.”
Custodians may only retain
custody over “property and things” and not flesh and blood living beings.
Unless this presumption is openly challenged by rejection of the
summons or warrant on the Public Record, the presumption stands as Truth
in Commerce and you are thereafter treated as a “thing or property.”
In this particular case
this presumption was absolutely rebutted when the alleged defendant proved his
arrest was a case of mistaken identity and in no way could the
Court Custodian detain him after that.
Sixteen words written
across the face of the summons or warrant; notarized and filed on the Public
Record will cure most problems. Those words are:
I do not
accept this offer to contract and I do not consent to these proceedings.
In addition to the above
sections of Canon Law 3228, the defendant has also unknowingly rebutted the
balance of the (12) presumptions:
▪
Court
Guardians
▪
Court
Trustees
▪
Government
as Executor and Beneficiary
▪
Executor
De Son Tort (not a party to)
▪
Incompetence
▪
Guilt
This particular defendant
succeeded in accomplishing all of this by “registering” his ALL CAPS
name as a “Fictitious Name” in which only he now owns an
absolute commercial and intellectual proprietary interest in the state
of Florida. By entering it in the (Public Record) he has overcome all (12)
presumptions and nullified the “prosecution and jurisdiction” of the private
Roman court. His next step would be to record it in the UCC, which is a notice
to the world.
Checkmate.
There is no way
for the corporate government and private Roman Court to proceed against this
living being. If the prosecutor was to disclose the presumptive frauds that
the Court has been operating under in the private side, it would also nullify
the case and subject the judge to arrest and damages for “prosecutorial fraud”
and the “absence of jurisdiction.”
Please note that the
judge’s only legal response to the alleged defendant is
to Order a “Stay” until the defendant secures counsel (meaning
an attorney and BAR Guild member). If it is reported that the alleged
defendant has not secured counsel the case remains absolutely deadlocked! If
this open “stay” does not cause him any harm (and it shouldn’t) he can choose
to
▪
do
nothing or
▪
he
can file a two page “Motion to Dismiss” or
▪
he
can file a “Rule to Show Cause” seeking a summary judgment for damages
on behalf of his living being.
What would happen if the
individual follows the judge’s advice and hires an attorney? In all probability
his attorney would use the alleged defendant’s “signed power of
attorney” to withdraw the “Fictitious Name Registration” from
the Public Record. The defendant would more than likely be imprisoned, tried on
the private side, and convicted!
What other applications
can this process be used for?
▪
licensing
▪
tax
collections
▪
foreclosures
▪
debt
collections
▪
the
vehicle code, to name a few.
All of these matters are
found on the private side and none could withstand a
Constitutional challenge.
Again, checkmate! (Don’t
you just love a good story with a happy ending?)
