BAR COURTS DEBUNKED: Sovereignists Unite, True Justice In Action IS Being Served

Sovereignist: the Ultimate/Supreme Decider as it concerns contractual agreements that outline specific actions/words/thoughts/etc to be followed according to said agreement.

For too long have certain People preyed upon ignorance in skewing an otherwise bearable legal/court system to their own personal money-making scheme. Please help put an end to this by reclaiming and applying Your Sovereignty to any past, present and future situations dealing with these confused People.

Court is a joke, it can be easily dealth with in a couple easy steps that require only minimal knowledge of how BAR courts really work:

1. Ask them what source their authority to hold You against Your will comes from. (They will tell You some code/statute.) The 'judge'/administrator may try to bluff You by saying He doesn't have to answer to Your request/demand; quote appropriate section of appropriate statute and reiterate that He is BONDED to follow said statute. For Canada, it is "S.337 CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA 2007 - PUBLIC SERVANT REFUSING TO DELIVER PROPERTY - 337. Every oen who, being or having been employed in the service of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province, or in the service of a municipality, and entrusted by virtue of that employment with the receipt, custody, management or control of anything, refuses or ralis to deliver it to a person who is authorized to demand it and does demand it, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. R.S.,c.C-34,s.297."

2. Tell them that their man-made code/statute is superceded by Universal Law/Creator Law/Law of God, and that Rule of Law applies to You and every Human associated with any situation where authority is being ASSUMED on the basis of a contractual agreement (We have a legal system as Our courts, NOT a system of Law, unless We make it so). Make them BONDED to Creator Law by calling in God as THE witness to the proceedings.

3. Now ask them to show You the TRUE CERTIFIED BONDED version of the code/statute they are claiming is their source of authority. The funny thing is, that no courts have such a version available. Why? BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T SIGN ONE (show Us the contract that makes these legal rules apply to Us). The courts rely on ignorance to secure unwitting contractual consent to proceed (which is fradulent extortion, due to withholding/obscuring this key information).

4. Insist that nothing can proceed without proof that the court is BONDED, because if it isn't, it is a simple matter to counter-sue the 'judge'/administrator for not following His/Her own rulebook. You may have to remind them of this fact. Be cordial at all times, and reiterate that You are simply dealing with a broken system the best way You know how to the extent of Your knowledge about the system. Attitude goes a long long way in court, even though some administrators seem to think they can act like assholes (which they can if no one holds them accountable to their own rules).

5. With the court debunked by not being able to show You the Bonded authority it assumed it had, finish the deal by asking to have the code/statute REDEEMED. What this means is that their 'statute rule' was put up to scrutiny and failed to support the claim(s) that the court made about its ruling authority, and by having the code/statute redeemed, You are recording this as fact, meaning that no one can ever charge You under any section of that code/statute ever again.

I know this works because I personally know at least one man who has used this. The night I was listening to His story about this strategy, the cops pulled Him over before We met, and originally said He was speeding (which He wasn't). After a big show of trying to assert their power (four or five cars came, for nothing except exactly that), they eventually wrote Him a ticket for something rediculously obscure because He had already redeemed the statute that would allow them to write Him a speeding ticket!

Another easy strategy to debunk their 'authority' is by simply asking them to show the statute that proves You are the PERSON that the code/statute will mention somewhere in its wording. Here is a part of a court transcript showing how easy this is to do, although it requires a little more savvy in dealing with the wording of the particular statute they are quoting as their authority. I would save this as backup in case the administrator seemed to think a BONDED source of authority wasn't necessary.

***

Patriots: Please keep this going: Hauert was indicted on five counts Se. 7203 WILLFUL FAILURE etc. Hauert wanted to know the OFFENCE statute he was accused of violating and would be pleading guilty to. He wanted to know the particular statute that made him the person required to pay the income tax. His attorney (addressing the judge) "The prosecution has been trying to get my client to plea bargain. My client is interested but has a few demands of the prosecution in order to understand the charges and determine the potential guilt. He has a serious question that nobody will address. Will the court entertain that question?"

Judge: "Certainly."

Hauert: "Your honor, Section 7203 of the I.R. Code is a DIS-CIPLINARY STATUTE. It defines the penalty for someone who has broken the law. I need to know the underlying offense statute that is used to determine if I am the "any person" required to file. The term "any person" is ambiguous.

Judge: "I don't know what he is asking for.(Looking at Prosecutor) Do you know what he's asking for?"

Prosecutor: "No, your honor, I don't know what he's asking for either."

Judge: "I am not knowledgeable of every law and can't be."

(Hey, isn't he presumed to to know the law?)

Hauert: Could you please bring me the I.R. Code book with 7203 in it so I can show you what I am talking about. (note: the clerk brought in the I.R.Code book.)

Judge: (Reading Sec. 7203) " Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return..."

Judge: "Sounds clear to me."

Note: (In the words of Hauert) "I looked at the prosecuting attorney and criminal investigator looking business-like and smiling confidently and I thought, these suckers have gotten to the judge."

Hauert: "May I see the book? (Reading) any person required by this Title...What I am asking is, what statute establishes the FACT that I am one of these "persons" required, by this title, to pay the tax? Where, exactly, in the Title is the offense defined, where am I made the subject of the tax?"

Note: (In the words of Hauert: "I then handed the judge back the book. Looking perplexed, the judge read those words over and over again for what felt like an eternity.")

Judge: "So what you're asking for, Mr. Hauert, is the Statute, referred to in Section 7203, that makes a person liable for the tax and subject to the penalties imposed by Section 7203?"

Hauert: "Yes, that's what I have been asking the prosecutor for. I have also been asking the IRS the same question for several years and no one will give me the Statute of law that I am accused of breaking."

Note: In one sentence that would destroy the government's entire case,

Judge: "No problem, Mr. Proscutor, I'm sure that you can provide a copy of that statute."

Prosecutor: (Stammering and stuttering) "Um, ohh.. I'm...uh.. not familiar with.. uh.. that part of the code." (With that, the Prosecutor lost his business like composure and the case was concluded. The prosecutor was ordered to find someone who knew which statute defined the offense.)

Hauert's attorney then requested a Bill of Particulars, defining the specific offense statute that created the liability for Hauert to pay the income tax and file a 1040 Tax Retutn. A Bill of Particulars is a written statement of the SPECIFIC CHARGES agains the defendant. This switched the burden of proof back to the government to provide such a statute. After an extended period of time, the prosecution still could not supplt the court with the offense statute or regulation that made Tom Hauert (or any American Citizen) the person made liable to pay the S.1 graduated Income Tax (because no such statute exists). Hauert, therefore, filed for and was granted a dismissal!

***

Knowledge is Power, applying it is Freedom. First We take the courts, then We use them to finish the housecleaning, not that We don't already have the Power of Christ and Divine Justice on Our side to ensure that Our Golden Age manifests. Enough is enough!

Namaste.