Your #1 Source For Protecting Freedom
Zeke explains the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedy! The idea that we have to try and settle things with our adversaries before we resort to court.
This session can also be viewed on [Youtube](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWgpnpScSBE) and [Ustream](http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2314184).
Non assumpsit. This is an old English word and will be dismissed by most judges if used in your court. The definition is whats important: A denial in fact of the promise or contract alleged. Also defined as: any defense tending to show that where was no debt or cause of action at the time of commencing suit. Again, I must restate that my remedy lies at the administrative level, hence the video’s title. Taking a position of Non assumpsit can be done without a UCC filing. The modern court motion is one of dismissal after rule 12 and admissions are addressed in a discovery motion.
Don’t ever plea. Thats the loser. Keep it administrative, where your constitutional rights will be upheld. Its the individuals job to hold the agent accountable.
You don’t win because you are right…
You win because you fight!
Point Blank
#1 There is no real party in interest to constitute a cause of action. “They” don’t exist. Without having been victimized, why on earth would they be entitled to compensation in the form of a fine or slave labor within the prison industrial complex? Indentured servitude owed to THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA or THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ___________ , masked as rehabilitation, I’ll have to opt out of that one.
#2 They have no evidence of corporate/commercial activity subjecting you to any statute.
#3 I’m aware that only me, personally, can sign an order from any judge.
#4 I have the right to exercise Judicial Power and can call the court at any time.
#5 Your confidence will build exponentially as more and more legal definitions are absorbed and overstood.
You must be logged in to post a comment
greatgoldminer
Great Video Zeke!
Make the agent produce the evidence supporting his/her presumption that you are regulated by corporate statute. Rebut the presumption! It’s the winner, flat out.
Otherwise your silent consent will leave you “guilty” every time.
I can’t give them personal jurisdiction, once I do I’ve lost. Instead of justice, I’ll experience injustice. The level of injustice is not a game I’m willing to play out.
We know they lie!
We know they don’t follow their own rules!
When is enough, enough?
Call the agent on their bluff, why fold to a fiction?
Examine what you know…
Thanks again Zeke,
greatgoldminer