|
1st question: "What is your name?" - 2nd question "Do you have a claim against me?" - Third question - "Do you know anyone who does have a claim against me?" - NOW 4th position is a statement: "I request the order of the court be released unto me immediately." Now, let me explain what "order" is. "I request that the Order of the Court be released to me immediately". In other words, what he is saying is "If we have no firsthand witnesses or claimants present -- what the hell are you guys operating on? Give me your marching orders". That's what he's saying. "I'm demanding to see the order of the court." Now, here's what Elvicks saying -- Where would that order come from? The order would have to come out of the Secretary of the Treasury. Because he's the man with the liability for all the books and he's the one that appraised the security instrument. So, if they don't have an Order going back to the Secretary of the Treasury, they don't have any authority to collect the debt. What's the probability that the Secretary of the Treasury issued them an order to collect the debt? Zero... Now if they don't have an order to collect the debt from someone who's the holder in due course. i.e., the Secretary of the Treasury, then they are acting as rogue agents. In that capacity, do you understand? Now let's go beyond that. If the Secretary of the Treasury gave an order, where did he get the order allowing him to give the order to the court to collect the debt on that security? Where did his authority come from? You keep going back until you get to God. |
Alternative Medicine
lectures
consciousness
Joe Galaxy®
corporation
holistic health
attraction
David Icke
download
awareness
mp3 player
9/11
ipod preloaded
law of attraction
videos
Secrets
hidden knowledge
John Shneider
natural person
New World Order
hidden
Jordan Maxwell
UFO
healthy
Money
Law of Deliberate Creation
The Secret
ipod lectures
strawman
Antalya
alien
positive
knowledge
Alex Jones
Illuminati
hidden truths
ipod videos
healthy living
vibration
information
wealth
|
|
exercising his rights under public internation law to determine what kind of business these people are trying to do with him And remember, you are there in your "public capacity". under public international law, private rights are recognized. Now, the judge calls the case in order to transact "private" business in his "private" court. So when Elvick stands up, he cannot see their "private business". He stands up and he's there for his 'public appearance' outside the venue. And he says, "What is your name?", in other words, "I want to know with whom i'm doing business. "Do you have a claim against me?" In other words, "Are we here on any 'public business'? "Do you know anyone who has a claim?". More public business. Who's the witness? And then , "I request the Order of the court be released to me immediately", is the demand that if we're here on public business involving me, I want to know who's behind the claim. With those four statements, has he not just made a public verbal demand for a Bill of Particulars? He's trying to find out the nature and cause of the claim. Okay? Only do this questioning after you have called someone to the witness stand, like the D.A. or public defender or even the judge. Just say, "I would like to call a witness to the stand for 'Direct Testimony' " , then once you have them 'locked in' they have to tell the truth right there. If you don't do this, it is not 'Direct Testimony' four questions and statement, he has created a small claims court. If you are conducting a public inquest into the matter concerning any claims that may be brought against you, and no claims are brought, the matter is concluded, the public inquest is over and you are outta there. Usually the judge goes quiet or every now and then when we say, "Do you know anyone who...", the judge or the prosecutor might say, "The State of ______ has a claim against you". At that stage of the game, you've got to alter your questions a little bit. "Is there anyone present to press the claim against me in any alleged name other than their own?" Now, if the prosecutor wants to stand up and press that claim, then you demand that he be sworn in to testify under oath as to the damage in the claim in which he is testifying... There's your inquest. He is not going to swear in. If he fails to swear in, then at that stage of the game you say, "There being no claimants who have sworn in under penalty of perjury today with a first hand damage claim, it would appear as though there is no more public business concerning me, i'm leaving". Don't allow him to hoodwink you into allegiance. it's either the judge's private business that's going to go on in there, which is the business of the corporate state, or your private rights under public law. If you traverse into his business, you've just abandoned your claim. "Do you have the order that issued to allow the warrant to issue?" Do you have a copy of the order that gave you the authority to issue the warrant?" Now if you don't have that order, your operating in your private capacity and I hope your insured and bonded" when the United States sold the debt to the corporation that built the car, it was your birth certificate that financed it. That (birth certificate) was the collateral under which the debt was sold to the (govermant) corporation. The corporation is now the..... Yeah! So now I've got the money to pay the thing with, but oddly enough, they took it from your account to start with, so it is "prepaid". But you see, if they don't "admit" that it's prepaid, then they are making a private claim, and now you have a new issue that is taxable. Otherwise, it is exempt. Jean: Exempt because it has already been prepaid. Roger: Yeah. Jean: Okay. If they are making a "Private" claim.... Roger: They are making another claim, see? Jean: They are making another claim in addition to the claim that they already borrowed |
