Then if you stick to the mythological freeman definition that "person" means only "a corporation," then you can be tried for the same crime over and over again. Of course in reality "person" usually means "natural person" so that would never happen, but were you being consistent with yourself you'd see that you just debunked yourself.
If you believe that a person is a corporation, association, firm, partnership, co-partnership, & natural person...
Don't you think it would be more logical to presume that a natural person would be more like a natural association, or a natural co-partnership???
There's no way you could possibly make me believe that I am on the same level as fictitious entities.
Nope, wrong again. There is no "contract" in this case - its simply a form used to speed up the process. You can choose to not fill it out at all and enter a choice verbally for the record, or the court will enter a not guilty plea for you if you try your freeman antics. You can refuse to sign it all day long and it won't matter a bit. Most people do it because they operate in reality and realize that its just a form.
You have the right to understand the nature and cause of the charges presented against you.. BEFORE you plea. How many people ask to understand the nature and charges??
If you simply say, "I do not feel as if I have been arraigned", then they cannot continue... because they cannot WAIVE the arraignment
without YOUR CONSENT. They may offer to enter a plea on your behalf... but would you consent?? ... or would you object?? I'd say, "On and for the Record.... The judge has entered a plea on his own behalf, and he has accepted the consequences that he might stumble upon, but I am NOT entering a plea." To plea is to beg, and there's no need for me to BEG from some coersive thugs.
And how exactly were you tricked here? You choose not to read the document. You could have chosen not to sign it and agian, nothing would have changed.
Right. Notice how I put quotation marks around "tricked".
I was focused on things that weren't important, like what does indigent mean. How indigent do I need to be before I can pick either one. Why does such a loaded question need to be asked in order to distribute justice?
And I was focused on that X next to my signature line... not the signature line below it for the judge. The pen markings truly took my focus off of what I was supposed to be doing... reading the document ("contract") that I was attaching my signature to. And it was definitely a contract. Two signatures were required. At minimum, my silent acquiescence would be required if the judge entered a plea of not guilty on my behalf. But why would I be silent when I have the right to ask questions, understand the nature & cause of the charges against me, and simply... NOT BEG THE COURT AT ALL. It is my RIGHT to WAIVE the BENEFIT/PRIVILEGE of THE COURT... Because WHY? Well, because I am the CREDITOR for the court, of course.
Actually any future run-ins - and your likely to have them if you practice freeman mythology since it has no basis in real law - are more than likely to end you up in contempt of court or in jail over things that normally wouldn't put one in jail.
Constitution isn't real, eh? Uniform Commercial Code isn't real?? Contract law isn't real? Silent acquiescence isn't real?? Arraignments aren't real? Common Law isn't real? Supreme Court case precedent isn't real?? Statutes aren't rules of a society?? I'm not allowed to withdraw myself from society???
I'll lead you to your proofs!!! I can point them all out if you really doubt their validity.
Nope, they already have jurisdiction over you because you live in and benefit from this society. You can play games and tap dance over names, address, social security numbers - none of it matters. You can choose not to sign anything, and they still have jurisdiction.
Living "in" a society is a rebuttable presumption. That I am receiving benefits from their society is another rebuttable presumption.
A Freeman, as well as all men, should actually read their Social Security Insurance cards... it straight up says, "This does not belong to you. It belongs to the Social Security Administrator.... No government agent is required to receive your SSN."
Simply ask... "Am I obligated to give you my SSN?" And then the officer is required to answer with a "NO!"
Repeat for Last Name, Address of Residency, etc...
You are only required to give a name here. I am Kyle. What's your name and what do you want from me?? Oh, you want my information... can you prove that I am required to have such information?? Oh, you can't?? Well... I'll see ya later.
Its no wonder why so many judges legitimately think "freemen" are mentally incompetent and order mental evaluations when you read things like this. Understand has the simple everyday meaning it does - do you comprehend what is going on - which you do. By telling them you don't understand your simply delaying the process because they'll become concerning about mental health. In the end, you can claim you don't understand all day - they still have jurisdiction.
DUCK = Daffy, Donald, & Natural DUCK
Based on the only part of this definition that we can work with... A Natural DUCK sounds more like a cloud in the shape of a duck... not a REAL, LIVING, BREATHING DUCK!!
Do you UNDERSTAND?? That Daffy and Donald don't BREATHE? DO you UNDERSTAND that they are *NOT* REAL!??
They will only get jurisdiction if you agree to it. There's no other way it could happen.
Since you are obviously all too familiar with the Law... why don't we run thru a scenario, any scenario you can come up with... starting with the policy enforcer. SHOOT!!
Really... the more I talk to you attorner-types, the more I'm sure that you are the real cause of society's ails. You lack even the smallest fraction of integrity.
