Original: https://redirect.invidious.io/watch?v=Dy6ECnz4Bsc
Companion notes: https://earthmindpress.wordpress.com/2021/09/28/study-notes-how-bible-secrets-plus-acceptance-can-win-almost-any-legal-case/
CourtTV “sovereign shitizen” mockery… man came in and played “that’s not me” games… ministerial clerk (aka “judge”) issued $25,000 warrant… man got scared and admitted to being there after all… ministerial clerk said “oh so you are here?” then ordered the bailiff to arrest him. And all on what began as a trivial matter. Fastest execution of warrant ever. Don’t let that be you.
In a bankrupt system, there is really no money; what we call “money” is now only promissory notes… documents… (performance) contracts…
Any and all financial documents presented to you are #1: negotiable instruments, and #2: admission that you are the source of credit; that you have value (think of “valuable consideration” – an element of contract law). Labor is what gives value to our system. The U.S., Inc.’s 13th Amendment prohibits any but voluntary servitude.
“The money is in your hands; why don’t you just give it to them?” The offer itself has the “money” (in the absence of lawful money) on it. Money is now nothing inherently more than an agreement. What’s the closest thing to physically representing an agreement? A signature (i.e., authorization).
Denial, argument, and other dishonors become the basis for their presumption that you will take the role of defendant/debtor. Instead, agree to negotiate the instrument on terms favorable to you.
In the words of a bank manager: banks have been instructed to treat anything with a signature on it as though it is as valuable as money.
See the figure of Jesus as a financial transaction volunteer; the “transmitting utility” (UCC lingo) of the past, present, and future. “Blessed are the peace makers.” (makers, drawers, drawees….). You cannot accept and argue at the same time.
In the words of a judge/ministerial clerk: “If the two sides agree, who am I to judge further?” (Or in other words: an agreement eliminates jurisdiction, as far as that matter is concerned).
How bravely counter-intuitive can you be? “When you fight them, it’s like an energy they can use.” -TJ. It’s all little more than bait to get an emotional reaction out of you. “Acceptance” does not inherently mean acceptance of liability or “guilt” (aka, debt; see German definition of debt; i.e., “debt”=”guilt”=”death”). Accept the role of creditor; that is what’s been presented to you, because you create money (see the McFadden Congressional testimony circa 1934; money is made off the signature, not the wo/man; the collateral, not the property).
“I am not come to destroy… but to fulfill the process.” “Leave there thy gift before the alter, and go thy way.” (i.e., your document you signed with the gift of your credit—a gift made as the creditor/creator with superior standing). “First be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer they gift.” It’s not what you think. See the bible largely as a court playbook. This is not hard to believe if you take it as the author John Lamb Lash has put it, i.e.: “the bible was written by overfed Roman lawyers.”
“Creditor” is not only a financial term; it is a legal euphemism for creator. Either way: one in a position of authority. Authority to do what? To instruct the zeroing of accounting, and the set-off of charges—since there is no way to truly pay. It’s only accounting (e.g., “money of account” not “money of exchange”). “General Accounting Principals” apply (to these legislative courts, whose expansion of jurisdiction occurred by an extremely loose interpretation of the “Commerce Clause” of the Constitution).
Leading questions (leading to? ...acceptance favorable to you, without liability or at least a massive reduction of it): “I can accept that, if…. (e.g., you can provide an assessment of the charges/true bill); you can specify what specie of money you accept for this debt; you can tell me which party will verify the complaint—how else can I now settle the charges, but to know who is moving the court with their sworn testimony of damages?”
Even at the extreme, it’s an offer: “I’m with the (scary alphabet soup agency), I’d like to ask you a few questions.” (i.e., “I’d like to offer you the chance to violate your own right to remain silent.”)
→ “I’ll have my attorney get in touch with you.”
Offer accepted, but with zero liability; it also returns burden and liability to them (impliedly, and without hostility. The subtext is: “You aren’t going to violate my right to remain silent and my right to legal counsel, are you?”
Daily exercise: when you are approached with anything, say “I want to accept this, and I’m going to need __ to do it.”
~
“Thank you for your presentment. I am returning it because it is erroneous. Please provide the document containing my valid signature, when I agreed to pay this.”
