the twelve presumptions of court
Which Must Be Overcome
For anyone who has seriously looked at and studied court procedure over the years, which not very many of us have, one of the things he will have noticed is how once the people catch onto some legal loophole or other that provides them remedy to successfully challenge a fixed and corrupt legal system, the courts will change their procedures to render the people’s process ineffective.
For example, at one time, any public officer bringing a complaint into court, like a traffic ticket, had to show up in court and present the complaint and assert the charge in person at the first hearing. In victimless traffic citations, when the alleged defendant challenged the fact that there was no damaged party through a notice back to the officer (along with sending notice to the court of this action) asking for evidence of a damaged party supporting personam jurisdiction and the officer had none, the matter was usually dismissed at the initial hearing. In many instance, the officer was advised by his legal department not to show up for the hearing. This happened to me the first time I used the “refusal for cause” process, and I didn’t have to say a word before the judge dismissed the case.
However, within a couple of years, the state court system had revised the court procedure, not requiring the officer to show up at the initial hearing which would quickly become an arraignment at which the judge was asking for a plea to an unverified complaint, so that judges could contract with and convict more innocent victims. Since most people are unfamiliar with court procedure, anyone entering a plea, when asked by the judge, automatically accepts the jurisdiction. In this way, only subject matter jurisdiction was challengeable. What this change in court procedure did was to allow a professional liar (the judge) easy access to intimidate the alleged defendant into making a mistake and accepting personam jurisdiction in the matter.
If the defendant refused to enter a plea at an arrainment hearing without explaining a reason why – such as, for example, he needed first to consult with an attorney before he could determine whether to enter a plea, which would buy some time for him to figure out what his next move would be, since the judge would allow that request before asking for the plea again in a subsequent hearing – the judge was obliged to enter a plea for him. One way or the other, the legal system was bound and determined to win this battle of nerves. But you had to know what you were doing before going in. They cannot ask for or enter a plea for a defendant until after the defendant has had access to legal counsel when requested. You just have to know to request this.
In addition to excusing the complaining officer from the initial hearing, the state courts changed the way the hearing procedure began. The judge would ask for the alleged defendant to provide his NAME for the record. If the alleged defendant answered with a name similar to the NAME on the citation, he automatically was presumed to have accepted the jurisdiction of the court. This happened to me also, and it was frustrating because I knew that the judge knew that there was a difference in capacity between the given name (which is what I gave, First Middle) and the corporate NAME (First Last or First Middle Last), but I didn’t know how to show proof of the difference. Once that deed (mistake) had been done, I was caught in their snare.
My point is, the legal system is constantly revising their procedures and educating its judges in how to overcome certain objections in order to disqualify those who are seeking a remedy, using whatever remedy is the current flavor at the time. During my ordeal of fourteen months battling three separate traffic citations, it was very frustrating to try one remedy after the other and have them all fail for I didn’t know the reason why. This is why rebutting the twelve presumptions of court prior to the court date listed on the summons or citation makes sense to me. Although I cannot claim firsthand knowledge of the successful use of this process, I would not hesitate to use it if pressed again.
So, let’s get down to a description and brief analysis of each of these presumptions that must be rebutted.
First, we have to realize that the legal system has put in place these twelve presumptions of court without any obligation to disclose them to the public. How they get away with that other than pure arrogance and corruption, I couldn’t say. As mentioned in the article “The American Legal System Is Not What You Think It Is,” the Bar attorneys and the judge have taken two oaths which conflict with one another. In essence, each Bar member in the court holds two capacities, one as an officer of the state, and the other as a member of a private legal guild sworn to secrecy about how they go about their business.
A Bar attorney’s first loyalty is to the legal guild, and therefore they have a built in conflict of interest. Therefore, they will endeavor to keep a traffic case on the private side of the ledger while pretending that it is on the public side. Since the attorneys and judges are both on the same page with this set up, this is fairly easy for them to do. If anyone calls them out on it, they just lie about it and say, “No, this is a pubic matter before the court. Not a private matter.” This is an important observation to keep in mind: they lie all the time. Never forget that fact if you get dragged into court.
The only caveat to using this formal challenge of the presumptions of law is that that document must first be recorded with the county recorder prior to the issuance of the traffic citation. It must first be in the public record. So, while you can try using it in a current matter if you are involved in one before having recorded that document, don’t be surprised if the court simply ignores it. It doesn’t necessarily make sense to me that this should be so, a challenge of presumptions ought to stand no matter when it is entered and over and above the fact that it was recorded. But higher authorities than myself have assured me that recordation is a must prior to the issuance of a citation as it becomes standing public notice to courts of one’s intent and status.
One other note, the document challenging the twelve presumptions of law does not need to be notarized, but does need to be viewed as a verified or certified statement. The suggested language for the verification of the challenge is included in the attached PDF. Also, do not forget to list this document on your Certificate of Mailing along with the citation listing so that you have proof of service.
The following information does not derive from any of my original first hand knowledge but rather from research and the assumption that it explains bitter personal experience. It arises from the research of an Australian man named Frank O’Collins who, over the years, has been tireless in looking into legal matters dealing with the Vatican. So, if you have any doubt about its authenticity, he’s your man to ask questions. I’m only acting as a messenger to deliver his message and perhaps to explain it in a way that it can be better understood. I have done my best to verify for myself everything he says, and to verify the information published in whatever sources he uses. If you wish to see one document attributed to Mr. O’Collin’s authorship, the following PDF document is titled “The History of Today’s Slavery.”
You can look up on Wikipedia the Papal Bulls of Pope Boniface VIII (Unam Sanctum in 1302) and Pope Nicholas V (Romanus Pontifex in 1455) if you have any doubt about the authenticity of those documents, using Internet sources to verify the history of the Papal Bulls that have been issued down through history.
From what I’m given to understand, just as with the “refusal for cause” process, it is necessary to return the summons or citation back to the presenter, by which doing technically shows it to be what is called “abandoned paper,” while sending a copy to the court with clear language written on the citation refusing their offer to contract, along with a notarized document rebutting the twelve presumptions that the court is making without disclosing this to the public. Next we’ll take a look at the language used to describe this process.
The definition of a presumption is “an idea that is taken to be true on the basis of probability.” In other words, in court, an assertion that is being taken as a presumption is a presumption which must be agreed to by the parties involved to be considered as true. If one party challenges the presumption to be true on the basis of probability, then all that is required to remove the presumption is a formal challenge to that presumption. The presumption then has no standing or merit in fact.
The next most important concept in this definition of a presumption is the idea of “probability.” So what is a probablity and how does it fit into a challenge of the presumption? A probability is defined as “the extent to which something is probable, the likelihood of something happening or being the case.” By definition, then, a probability has no substantive quality needing to be proven. It is only a probability of what may be, and therefore has no substance in material fact. So how do these concepts relate to how a court must view such a challenge to it’s presumptions?
A State court does not operate according to any true rule of law, but rather by presumptions or by color of the law. Therefore, when you step into court and do not immediately, before anything else, rebut the presumptions of the private Bar Guild, then the presumptions stand as true and are considered by the court to become facts in the case. It is important to realize here that these presumptions cannot be rebutted after the fact, that is after one has had their first opportunity to rebut them. Once that opportunity has slipped by and no one has rebutted them, the presumptions become tied inextricably to the case, and thereafter are said to stand as “Truth in Commerce.” This is how all these courts work.
As such, anyone attempting to enter a sworn certified statement rebutting any one or several of the twelve presumptions without rebutting them all at once, or an affidavit purporting to identify the so-called defendant or any other material aspect of the matter, will not be recognized by the court. The affidavit will be dismissed as irrelevant by the court. Even if it makes a case for the redemption of the defendant based upon the fact that it was not rebutted by the plaintiff! As we have been taught, an affidavit stands as truth in commerce if it is not rebutted. But in this case, because if even only one of the twelve presumptions the Bar Guild is using to bring its case is not rebutted, such an affidavit or certified statement will be irrelevant, and therefore it is unnecessary for the plaintiff to rebut it!
This is why the affidavits that we have been entering into court seeking remedy have been ignored. It is because we have neglected to rebut, at the outset of the matter before anything else, all twelve of the presumptions being asserted by the Bar Guild. Therefore, according to this information, the most important thing we can do, and perhaps the only thing we need do in addition to refusing the offer to contract, is to rebut the twelve presumptions of the court. However, do not expect most courts to just lie down and accept this refutation of their authority. Some may in fact do so. Yet inevitably many courts (i.e., magistrates) will continue to attempt to contract with their victim even after it has been shown that the court has no authority to pursue the matter any further. This is where it may be beneficial to pursue intimidation of the judge by gently reminding him that he must recuse himself if he refuses to bring forth his oaths of office.
Expect magistrates to use all their powers of intimidation to keep a matter appearing to move forward. But no matter how many ways they attempt to intimidate you, always remember one thing: there are only three ways these courts can end up sending a person to jail or enforcing a final convicting judgment on a “defendant.” Those three ways are one, if you have an attorney. Two, if you are incompetent. And three, if you sign something (like a plea agreement or a final judgment outlining the penalties)! However, in order to avoid the intimidation of a court, you may have to put up with some inconvenience in order to call them on their bluff. I learned this trick from a man who gave a seminar on law and explained in detail how this worked. Fortunately his seminar was captured on video.
Readers can benefit from this man’s knowledge by viewing the following video. It is suggested that you take the time to use a computer and a rich text Wordpad file to transcribe the pertinent sections of his talk so as to have it down in black and white where you can study it, but also so as to not forget exactly what he said. The details are important. This section of the video begins around the 45 minute mark and last for approximately fifteen minutes.
David Straight #2 of 8
David Straight Seminar in Chicago November 2019,
Ambassador for Christ Time: 1:11:21
Those who have studied and understand American history will know full well why the Bar Guild is so hell-bent to keep everything on the private side of a legal matter. It is because the public side invokes the constitutional issues, and nothing the Bar Guild does can withstand a constitutional challenge. This is because the organic Constitution still exists in its original form and authority, and supposedy still stands in the way of foreign interference (presumed and unsubstantiated Admiralty claims) in our court system. I say “supposedly” because no one can guarantee that a court will choose to recognized such challenges.
As briefly touched on in a previous article (Concealment of Material Facts Triggers Estoppel) the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 was the point at which the republic Union of States went out of being governed as a de jure representative republic and began being ruled as a de facto democracy (simple majority rule) under Admiralty and International law. In the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 Congress incorporated a second federal government separate and distinct from the previously unincorporated original organic federal government of the republic, thereby taking control of the government away from the people and effectively making people (those who were uneducated and therefore ignorant of what just took place to change the governing mechanism within the country) the subjects of government.
The constitution that Congress created as their bylaws for its new corporation mirrored the organic Constitution for the United States of America, but without the protective teeth that the latter instrument contained in terms of personal rights of the people and limitations on the federal government’s ability to infringe those rights. That new constitution was in essence a corporate mission statement for the newly incorporated municipal government of the District of Columbia. This new government, entirely controlled by the de facto United States Congress which created it and out of the hands of the people and thereby bypassing the original organic Constitution, was separate and superior to the District of Columbia Organization Acts of 1790 and 1801, the former of these two Acts of which initially formed the territory of the original District of Columbia as the seat of the federal government.
Therefore the original Constitution for the United States of America (1787) and its subsequent sister constitution with its Bill of Rights, the Constitution of the United States of America (1789), because there was no quorum seated after March 27, 1861 when the Congress adjourned sine die, have been temporarily suspended in favor of the United States corporation created by the District of Columbia Act of 1871 under a de facto Congress masquerading as the original jurisdiction United States Congress. (Those who wish to learn more about the specifics of these Acts are encouraged to read about their history as explained in an article The District of Columbia Act of 1871 which lays out the relatively complicated historical timeline of what took place and the meaning of each Act in a relatively brief but understandable manner.)
An interesting side note, as a result of these constitutional shenanigans, every amendment to the United States corporate constitution passed after its creation in 1871 have no bearing or effect on the organic Constitution of the United States of America which has sixteen amendments. In other words, the two constitutions are separate documents referring to two separate legal realities. The reason that the amendments in the constitution for the incorporated District of Columbia Congressional corporation do not apply to the organic Constitution is quite simple: the corporate Congress has not the authority to amend the original Constitution of the unincorporated United States of America.
There are twelve key presumptions asserted by the private Bar Guilds which if unchallenged stand as true, those presumptions being: 1) the Presumption of Public Record, 2) the Presumption of Public Service, 3) the Presumption of Public Oath, 4) the Presumption of Immunity, 5) the Presumption of Summons, 6) the Presumption of Custody, 7) the Presumption of Court of Guardians, 8) the Presumption of Court of Trustees, 9) the Presumption of Government acting in two roles as Executor and Beneficiary, 10) the Presumption of Agent and Agency, 11) the Presumption of Incompetence, and 12) the Presumption of Guilt.
Presently, we will examine each of these presumptions and their rebuttal one at a time. This information is not my information but rather is the fruit of my research, and can be found at the following link to a PDF entitled Exhibit-7.pdf.
1 The Presumption of Public Record is that any matter brought before a state Court is a matter for the public record when in fact it is presumed by the members of the private Bar Guild that the matter is a private Bar Guild business matter. Unless openly rebuked and rejected by stating clearly the matter is to be on the Public Record, the matter remains a private Bar Guild matter, completely under private Bar Guild rules;
I, John Smith, the undersigned formally challenge the Presumption of Public Record as it is by definition a presumption and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact.
2. The Presumption of Public Service is that all the members of the Private Bar Guild who have all sworn a solemn secret absolute oath to their Guild then act as public agents of the Government, or “public officials” by making additional oaths of public office that openly and deliberately contradict their private “superior” oaths to their own Guild. Unless openly rebuked and rejected, the claim stands that these private Bar Guild members are legitimate public servants and therefore trustees under public oath;
I, John Smith, the undersigned formally challenge the Presumption of Public Service as it is by definition a presumption and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact.
3. The Presumption of Public Oath is that all members of the Private Bar Guild acting in the capacity of “public officials” who have sworn a solemn public oath, remain bound by that oath and therefore bound to serve honestly, impartially, and fairly as dictated by their oath. Unless openly challenged and demanded, the presumption stands that the Private Bar Guild members have functioned under their public oath in contradiction to their Guild oath. If challenged, such individuals MUST recuse themselves as having a conflict of interest and cannot possibly stand under a public oath;
I, John Smith, the undersigned formally challenge the Presumption of Public Oath as it is by definition a presumption, and by definition has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact.
4. The Presumption of Immunity is that key members of the Private Bar Guild in the capacity of “public officials” acting as judges, prosecutors and magistrates who have sworn a solemn public oath in good faith are immune from personal claims of injury and liability. Unless openly challenged and their oath demanded, the presumption stands that the members of the Private Bar Guild as public trustees acting as judges, prosecutors and magistrates are immune from any personal accountability for their actions;
I, John Smith, the undersigned formally challenge the Presumption of Immunity as it is by definition a presumption, and by definition has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact.
5. The Presumption of Summons is that by custom a summons unrebutted stands and therefore one who attends Court is presumed to accept a position (defendant, juror, witness) and jurisdiction of the court. Attendance to court is usually invitation by summons. Unless the summons is rejected and returned, with a copy of the rejection filed prior to choosing to visit or attend, jurisdiction and position as the accused and the existence of “guilt” stands;
I, John Smith, the undersigned formally challenge the Presumption of Summons as it is by definition a presumption, and by definition has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact.
6. The Presumption of Custody is that by custom a summons or warrant for arrest unrebutted stands and therefore one who attends Court is presumed to be a thing and therefore liable to be detained in custody by “Custodians”. Custodians may only lawfully hold custody of property and “things” not flesh and blood soul possessing beings. Unless this presumption is openly challenged by rejection of summons and/or at court, the presumption stands you are a thing and property and therefore lawfully able to be kept in custody by custodians;
I, John Smith, the undersigned formally challenge the Presumption of Custody as it is by definition a presumption, and by definition has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact.
7. The Presumption of Court of Guardians is the presumption that as you may belisted as a “resident” of a ward of a local government area and have listed on your “passport” the letter P, you are a pauper and therefore under the “Guardian” powers of the government and its agents as a “Court of Guardians”. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to demonstrate you are both a general guardian and general executor of the matter (trust) before the court, the presumption stands and you are by default a pauper, and lunatic and therefore must obey the rules of the clerk of guardians (clerk of magistrates court);
I, John Smith, the undersigned formally challenge the Presumption of Guardians as it is by definition a presumption, and by definition has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact.
8. The Presumption of Court of Trustees is that members of the Private Bar Guild presume you accept the office of trustee as a “public servant” and “government employee” just by attending a Roman Court, as such Courts are always for public trustees by the rules of the Guild and the Roman System. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to state you are merely visiting by “invitation” to clear up the matter and you are not a government employee or public trustee in this instance, the presumption stands and is assumed as one of the most significant reasons to claim jurisdiction – simply because you “appeared”;
I, John Smith, the undersigned formally challenge the Presumption of Trustees as it is by definition a presumption, and by definition has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact.
9. The Presumption of Government acting in two rolesas Executor and Beneficiary is that for the matter at hand, the Private Bar Guild appoints the judge/magistrate in the capacity of Executor while the Prosecutor acts in the capacity of Beneficiary of the trust for the current matter. If the accused does seek to assert their right as Executor and Beneficiary over their body, mind and soul they are acting as an Executor De Son Tort or a “false executor” challenging the “rightful” judge as Executor.
Therefore, the judge/magistrate assumes the role of “true” executor and has the right to have you arrested, detained, fined or forced into a psychiatric evaluation. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to demonstrate you are both the true general guardian and general executor of the matter (trust) before the court, questioning and challenging whether the judge or magistrate is seeking to act as Executor De Son Tort, the presumption stands and you are by default the trustee, therefore must obey the rules of the executor (judge/magistrate) or you are an Executor De Son Tort and a judge or magistrate of the private Bar guild may seek the assistance of bailiffs or sheriffs to assert their false claim against you;
I, John Smith, the undersigned formally challenge the Presumption of Government acting in two roles as Executor and Beneficiary as it is by definition a presumption, and by definition has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact.
10. The Presumption of Agent and Agency is the presumption that under contract law you have expressed and granted authority to the Judge and Magistrate through the statement of such words as “recognize, understand” or “comprehend” and therefore agree to be bound to a contract. Therefore, unless all presumptions of agent appointment are rebutted through the use of such formal rejections as “I do not recognize you”, to remove all implied or expressed appointment of the judge, prosecutor, or clerk as agents, the presumption stands and you agree to be contractually bound to perform at the direction of the judge or magistrate;
I, John Smith, the undersigned formally challenge the Presumption of Agent and Agency as it is by definition a presumption, and by definition has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact.
11. The Presumption of Incompetence is the presumption that you are at least ignorant of the law, therefore incompetent to present yourself and argue properly. Therefore, the judge/magistrate as executor has the right to have you arrested, detained, fined or forced into a psychiatric evaluation. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to the fact that you know your position as executor and beneficiary and actively rebuke and object to any contrary presumptions, then it stands by the time of pleading that you are incompetent then the judge or magistrate can do what they need to keep you obedient.
I, John Smith, the undersigned formally challenge the Presumption of Incompetence as it is by definition a presumption, and by definition has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact.
12. The Presumption of Guilt is the presumption that as it is presumed to be a private business meeting of the Bar Guild, you are guilty whether you plead “guilty”, do not plead, or plead “not guilty”. Therefore unless you either have previously prepared an affidavit of truth and motion to dismiss with extreme prejudice onto the public record or call a demurrer, then the presumption is you are guilty and the private Bar Guild can hold you until a bond is prepared to guarantee the amount the guild wants to profit from you.
I, John Smith, the undersigned formally challenge the Presumption of Guilt as it is by definition a presumption, and by definition has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact.
I formally challenge all presumptions of law and as I have formally challenged all the twelve presumptions of law then the presumption of law formally has no substance in material FACT.
I will recognize the rule of law, when and only when there is the material evidence of, that assumed rule of law has some material evidence of substance in presentable material fact.
Until then, the search for the rule of law, that has some credibility in material fact continues.
It is done.
Without ill will or vexation
For and on behalf of the Legal Entity JOHN SMITH
and the living man, John Smith.
If you would like to learn more about concepts of law so you can avoid the whole mess without having to “appear” in court, you can download our free ebook Common Law Remedy To Beat Traffic Tickets and learn about the secrets that the courts and legal profession don’t want you to know.
If you’d like to learn more about the law and how it can serve you, don’t hesitate to check out our Articles on Traffic Law section. Discover some of the secrets of law that you’ve never been taught!