Folks I have commented in a post on the need to understand the meaning and intent of any sentence, especially when it is directed at you and you are required to give the answer. The worst thing we can do is assume. Assume means: 1. take for granted without actual proof 2. to take upon oneself; undertake (an office or responsibility) 3. to take on; put on 4. to pretend 5. to claim for oneself; appropriate; usurp 6. to adopt So, in the court, the first thing the judge requires you to do is assume the legal name. Why is that so important? Because the corporate court can only deal with an entity - a paper name - the legal name. It can not deal with a living person. Why? Because it is not a constitutional court held to the living men and womens contract - the Commonwealth of Australia constitution Act (UK) 1900 inter alia the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Proclaimed & Gazetted 1st January 1901, bound to The Constitution - Magna Carta and the Habeas Corpus Act 1862. Therein and therein alone, lie the rules of the living men and women of this country. Therein and therein alone - is OUR contract. Because the corporate courts of the Aust Govt do not hold to and do not have the authority of this contract, they need to have individual contracts with you and I. And clearly you would not do that willingly, so they need to trick you into agreeing to be the paper name / strawman. Why? Because it belongs to their system - they gave it to you. How? When your parents registered your birth, they did so by giving you your Christian names. My live birth record, my husbands and my childrens all show that our parents only gave us those names - usually in their personal handwriting under signature. But when you get back the birth certificate, you have an extra name. So my parents names me Susan Linda. The government named me Susan XXXXX XXXX and when I was married my new government name was Susan XXXXX Maynes. No handwriting and no signature. So is that me? Clearly not. It is a Title in some respects, an assumed name for a specific purpose, a pretend name. But it is NOT my living woman name. It is not what I am called by my parents, who gave me life. As the living woman I am Susan XXXXX from the house of Maynes - that is the pure bibilical reference. The government refers to me on paper as Susan XXXXX MAYNES or SUSAN XXXXX MAYNES or some similar description. That is not me. So, because the system accuses Susan XXXX MAYNES of a crime, and a paper entity has no assets to remove in punishment, they need to get the living woman to agree to be the paper entity, to assume the punishment. Read the definitions again folks. Now the attached paper explains this a little further re the court and the judge. His role is to get you the living man or woman to assume the paper name, so the judge can punish you and the govt can legally take more of your wealth and assets. The word you becomes vital here. As the doc explains you is both a plural and a singular word. If I called out, to a room full of people, Hey you - everyone would turn around to see if the you, was them. If I called out Hey you Mary. Only the Marys would turn around. Now if I called out Mary Brown, would you come here - Mary Brown would come to me. Now, in a court, the judge states - John Robert BROWN, you are guilty of ........ And you, John Robert from the house of Brown, make the immediate assumption he is talking to you and respond. But who is he really talking to? The entity or the living man? That is not identified is it. You assumed it all by yourself without clarifying the question - go back to def #1. When Peter Dare, in the Cowra Court, kept saying to me Mrs Maynes....... I kept asking him, Who are you talking to, me the living woman, because my name is Sue or the paper entity, for whom you are the trustee? I practised not assuming anything. When he lost his cool and yelled at me Im talking to YOU, I still did not assume but said - Then tell me who you are talking to, tell me whether or not it is the living woman or the paper entity? Many people believe that the trap is the all caps name. I think the trap is wider than that, trying to get you to assume the name in a specific situation. Once you have assumed it the trap has caught you IN THAT SITUATION ONLY. Otherwise, because I drive with the permission of a drivers licence - then would I not have already accepted the Name and the court would not require me to contract again? If I have a bank account, have I not already assumed that name in this perspective and would that not then be applicable in every circumstance? And it is not, as we know. Each contract holds to itself it appears. I have talked to so many people who interrupt halfway through a sentence because they ASSUME they know where the sentence is going. Sometimes they are right, often not. I have done it myself and am working on stopping because, in the legal structure we now face - it is dangerous to assume. When reading anything referring to yourself, get a dictionary and look up every single word to make sure you understand exactly what it is trying to say. If you send a legal letter, include your own dictionary interpretations so there can be no dispute as to your meaning. In a verbal situation, ask for clarification - ask, ask, ask - do not answer unless YOU know what is being said. Use your words wisely folks. As Sam often reminds me - we have 2 ears for hearing and 1 tongue for talking. Listen first, think about the real words used to make sure you understand the words, then respond. And if you make an error - correct it - rebut it.
Posted on: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 07:54:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015