0:00 Greetings and salutations all my fellow American sovereigns. This is the vocational science of freedom Saturday night civics and sovereignty class. And tonight will be the sixth reading of the website USA versus US. And in the show notes, if you're listening to this later, I'll have the layout of the vocabulary words that we'll cover tonight because I found in this site that some of the things that he puts on either side and the right hand side is the de facto side and the left hand side is the dure. Dure meaning by right and de facto meaning by fact, meaning it's there but it's not legitimate. um some of these definitions and some of
0:46 these ideas that he has in here are not exactly correct and I never want to give anybody any information that's not 100% correct. So, I put together a vocabulary list for tonight. And in it, I'll be going over each of the vocabulary words that I feel he either might have not gotten correct, meaning he put them on the wrong side, or he might have not even really known what these things mean. So, all the definitions in the vocabulary list are going to come from Bouvier's law dictionary, 1856 edition. and we'll go over them not exhaustively, but I just wanted to make sure that I gave them to
1:31 everyone so that you guys can double check them and read them over at your own valition. Okay, so I haven't really talked about any of the like little links on the sides of this website. I know some of the links are broken also. I don't know how often he updates this website but on the left hand side I did notice this this aspect of the caffers and caffers stands for comprehensive annual financial report and a lot of people don't understand that the corporate government has basically kind of what he mentions like two sets of books and the comprehensive annual financial reports are the bookkeeping of
2:17 basically what the corporation is doing. So you have caffers for cities, municipalities, you have caffers for counties and all these municipalities, all these corporations that are pretending to be government, they all have their own Dun and Bradstreet numbers as well, which you can look up on dnb.com. And I don't recall if you still have to set up an account with DMB to actually see them any longer, but anyway, they're there. And for every county, you'll see for the Dun and Brad Street number, it'll usually say, now not always, but it'll usually say the
3:03 district attorney for each county when you look up their Dun and Bradreet information. So say the district attorney for Clarence County is John Henry Doe, right? So you go look up the Dun and Brad Street information for John Henry Doe. And a lot of the times it will say also traded as such and such county. And that's your first clue that you're being run by corporate government. Your second and possibly biggest clue is the fact that the Dun and Brad Street numbers are connected to the caffers. And there's a link here which says more info and I'll just briefly go
3:50 through this because it I've never really talked about the caffers at all. I do want to eventually do a class on it, but it's not something that I focus on because aside from proving the fact that we have corporate government, there really isn't anything to be say done with them, meaning there's no real use for them as far as say putting the information into a court case or whatever else. It just proves the fraud of what they're doing. So, the biggest shell game for theft in this world's history. Government at all levels holds back its annual financial report from the people of America for over 50 years by Walter J. Burn. Every city, county, state, and the federal government openly talks about the quote unquote budget, but keeps a
4:36 virtually hidden second set of books which track the investments and enterprise ventures worth trillions of dollars in tangible wealth they have built up and are spending from these virtual hidden portfolios as a result of investing your skimmed money for over 50 years in everything from real estate, stock market, and so motive. They build their empires from where that money is spent and invested internationally. When looking at the big picture, only one-third of government's annual revenue comes from taxes. 2/3 comes from return on investments and enterprise venture projects. To offset taxation, not $1 of that non-tax revenue is tied directly to the annual quote
5:22 unquote budget that is supported by taxation. Your city, county, state, and federal governments have lied to you for decades with administrative reconstructuring of government. There is no need for taxes. Our governments are not broke. They are rich beyond measure with our money. Now, I would pause and make a point that the United States Federal Corporation is definitely quote unquote bankrupt. However, I will agree with them. They're not broke and they are hiding it from the American taxpayer. Investing and spending it while pleading they are broke and need more taxes, bonds, and levies to survive. This being done as they blindly justify their obscene growth. There is enough aggregate wealth
6:09 owned by our corporate government agencies to abolish all property and income taxes today. You are being conned, lied to, ripped off, and financially raped. Total annual personal income of USA now this is quite a few years ago 24 to be precise was $ 8.2 trillion all income wages and investment return from Bill Gates government employees to the local paper boy federal income tax 1.8 trillion local government tax 1.6 trillion total disclosed government general purpose tax income 3.4 4 trillion personal income. Now, this would be the caffers that he's speaking of. 8.2 to 3.4 taxation equals $4.8 trillion. The
6:58 net personal income after all taxation from both federal and local governments and source 1999 combined financial statements CF CFS. Now for the revelation. Estimated investment enterprise income not disclosed in the general fund accounting both federal and local government would bring federal and local governments annual total income up by another 5.1 trillion. government's non- tax income or total income of 8.5 trillion or for the real earth shaker of the mind's comprehension government income twice that of the total annual net personal income after taxation of the entire nation. So I'll just leave it at that.
7:46 And another thing that I want to mention about the caffers and you guys are welcome to read the rest of this just off the link that's in USA versus US here. It's just right here where it says more info. But another thing about caffers I just want to mention is that some men have spent their entire lives researching and exposing the whole entire caffer fraud if you will. And there was another website and I tried to look for it and I don't think I have it bookmark. I don't even know if it's up anymore, but there was another gentleman and I think it might have been the same gentleman that was writing that article and he spent years 50 years and I know he wrote a few books as well on on the subject. So what the caffers are is it's basically showing how many stocks and investments
8:33 and everything else that the municipalities and the corporate state own, what the returns are and so on so forth. So this whole entire corporate government in a very strange sense owns the majority of all of the stock of all of the corporations in America. So you want to talk about a 100% fascist state and fascism being the definition of government and corporations basically merging together. Just that very simple definition. I don't want to get into the politics of it, but on that very basic definition, there's no question that the United States is already 100% and has
9:18 been basically since 1933 completely fascist. And that they don't tell us any of this and they keep saying, "Oh, you owe that, you owe this, you owe that." Is a pretty big fraud. And that's the reason, one of the reasons, one of the many reasons why I created the vocational science freedom status stocks to get you out of the situation of having to pay taxes and being subject to their jurisdiction by contracts, trusts, pledges, bonds, oaths, all of it. Because there's no reason to be a part of a corporation that only wishes to do you harm. So, and then below this it says if the
10:04 corporate government says they can't meet the budget or need to cut back services, they are not telling you the whole truth. And that's so they can get more money from you. Okay. So, that's just a little side thing about the caffers. All right. So, to get into the meat of where we left off last time, we left off between at suit and action here. And I'm going to bring up the vocabulary list here so that everybody can actually see what these are. Now, I'm not going to go through the vocabulary list exhaustively today. I just want to mention that it'll be in the show notes in the mega file to be able to download for later so that you can go through these definitions and actually read what they actually say. So, first off, we have suit and remember the left side here is the dure, right
10:52 side's the deacto. So he's saying that suit is dure and action is deacto. Well, that's simply not the truth. A suit is an action. The word suit in the 25th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 applies to any proceeding in a court of justice in which the plaintiff pursues in such court the remedy which the law affords him. An application for a prohibition is therefore a suit. Number two, in its most extended sense, the word suit includes not only a civil action, but also criminal prosecution as indictment, which would be from a grand jury, information, which we'll get to later, and a conviction by a magistrate. Okay, so that's a suit.
11:38 Okay, so what's an action? Well, the word action was in the definition of suit, but anyway, action in practice, and I'm not going to bother to read that Latin because I'd probably butcher it. So action in practice actions are divided into criminal and civil. A criminal action is a prosecution in a court of justice in the name of the government against one or more individuals accused of a crime. Civil action is a legal demand of one's rights or it is the form given by law for the recovery of that which is due. Till judgment the Okay, so okay, I'm kind of skipping through the law here. Okay, so all right. Till judgment, the RIT is properly called an action. Okay. So, when you file an original writ, which is how most common lawsuits regularly
12:25 started, you would file an original writ. And within the writ, you'd have what was called a declaration. And there's seven parts to a declaration. And there's nine parts to a bill, meaning a bill in equity. And I'm not going to go through all those tonight. Those are explained in other classes. So I'm not going to rehash that. But just to understand what these things are at common law versus everything on the right hand side being equity, maritime amote, ecclesiastical, military and so forth. It's important that you don't confuse these things. Okay. So, so a writ is properly called an action but not after
13:11 and therefore a release of all action is regularly no bar of all execution. They are meaning actions they are real personal and mixed. An action is real or personal according as reality or personality is recovered not according to the nature of the defense. And to simplify this a little bit better. So a real action is that which is something that's going after property. A personal action is that which is going after somebody else, meaning like they trespassed upon you or whatnot or you want damages or something. And then a mixed action is usually what you have in dealing with matters of land rights under the common law. But again,
13:59 that's if you guys want to really understand a lot more regarding what these actions are and what suits are and a lot of what we're covering tonight, I highly suggest that everybody watch the vocational science of freedom class on the the to the totality of law class and the ins and outs of court together. These two will explain a lot of these concepts in far more detail than I'm going to even attempt to go over tonight. Okay? So, if you want to deep dive into that, these are the two classes that I would suggest that everybody watch. And they're on all the platforms as well. So, they're on Rumble and they're also on Odyssey. These are just where they're at in on the YouTube page. So, just go
14:45 to playlists and then click on them. Okay. So, anyway, back to this. So, so that's an action. I'm not going to read all of these different types of actions. Again, I just kind of generally stated what they are. So, you have real action, personal action, mixed action, and uh personal actions of different kinds and so on so forth. Okay, so that's that. All right. The next crime, a noun, injury to a man, woman, or child or damage their party must be an injured party must show actual harm or damage. Okay, fine. That's one way to state it, but that's also under the common law defined as a tort. So, is that really the correct definition of a crime? No. On the other
15:31 side, the de facto side, it states criminal offense. Criminal is an adjective, not a noun. An offense is not a crime, but a violation of policy. And of course, it means public policy. Enforcement of policies. The name police came from policies. Actually, it didn't. It came from the word polus. But anyway, so that's even not necessarily correct either. Okay. Accuser, at least this one, the Bouvier had a definition for is just one who makes an accusation. And then and that's he says is on the dire side. So on the defective side, plaintiff, informant, complaintant, plaintiff practice, he who in a personal action seeks a remedy for an injury to his rights. That's fine.
16:17 There's no problem with that. There's no aspect of that being de facto. The use of the term plaintiff simply isn't. And then plaintiffs are legal or equitable. The legal plaintiff is he in whom the legal title or cause of action is vested. The equitable plaintiff is he who not having legal title yet is in equity entitled to the thing sued for or sometimes for the monetary damages of it or even the use of it. For example, when a suit is brought by Benjamin Franklin for the use of Robert Morris, Benjamin Franklin is the legal and Robert Morris is the equitable plaintiff. This is the usual manner of bringing suit when the cause of action is not assignable at law, meaning under common law, but is so
17:03 inequity. So in that sense, okay, is the definition sort of hinting towards the idea that the word plaintiff is only something on the equitable side? Yeah, maybe. If you used the word plaintiff in say the heading, meaning your court heading, when you filed a suit, it wouldn't change the fact if you were at law or equity. Meaning the use of the word plaintiff would not automatically put you into some equity court. What determines what court you're in is stated within the body of the action or
17:48 the writ. Okay. Okay. And then accused, no defense attorney. So he's saying accused is on the djour side. No defense necessary unless evidence and witnesses is overwhelming. Well, no. If someone brings a suit against you, they can do it in a lot of different ways. They can do it in a lot of different jurisdictions. So, it's just it's not automatically that they are on the dur side. Simply not the case. And then he's saying on the de facto side, it's named the defendant needs to defend against guilt assumption. Well, yeah, you need to defend against whatever is going on. However, that's not automatically what that means. meaning you don't have to be called a defendant
18:33 to be in a situation to do that. Okay, so this is composed by Ed Rivera. Okay, that's a guy who I have learned a lot from and trust his info. Okay, free law information legal system is privately owned. True. All courts in the United States are privately owned by the Crown Temple in London. I've never seen proof of that. I know they're owned and through the caffers I know that they have their own Dun and Brad Street numbers, but I've never been able to find any evidence that they're all linked back to the Inner Temple and Middle Temple in London. Wouldn't surprise me. I'm not saying it's a invalid theory. I would however like to see proof of that at some point. Number two, all attorneys
19:18 and judges are agents of the privately owned Crown Temple. Pretty much true. All United States courts are admiral courts under color of law. It appears to be law, but it's not. Well, again, this gets to the fact that they're running all the jurisdictions at the same time when you wander into these inferior courts. So, it's not just admiraly law they're dealing with. Four, all defendants are wards of the court. That's true for various different reasons which I've already spoken of during the rest of the reading of this particular series. So, I'm not going to rehash that. All attorneys are attorneys or twisters. That's funny but true. To attorney means to take from one and give to another. That's literally where the definition of attorney comes from and the etmology. Six. All attorneys and
20:03 judges are officers of the court. A conflict of interest. Well, yes. No, because they don't actually work for the state. If they did actually work for the state, meaning that these courts didn't have separate purses from the state and the state was quote unquote the plaintiff or the accuser, then that would be a conflict of interest. But because they're all private for-profit courts, there's no conflict of interest because the officers thereof aren't the plaintiffs. They are separate. So, seven, admiraly jurisdiction means the judge has the power of an admiral on a ship. Well, more like a captain, but
20:49 yeah, sure. Eight, admiral on a ship has absolute power over life and death. True. Nine, defendants have no rights in court. Yeah, for a lot of the inferior jurisdictions, I would agree with that. 10, all statutes in the United States only apply to persons who are fictitious entities. Well, they they apply to infants. That's what a person is. It's an infant. I wish people would stop getting this wrong. I mean for God's sakes, how many times do I have to say it? But anyway, a person is not necessarily a fictitious entity. Yes, it can be. But this is the definition of person under the United States code. People one USC subsection 8 person, human being, child and individual as including born alive, infant. In determining the meaning of any act of
21:35 Congress or of any ruling, regulation or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words person, human being, child, an individual shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. A person is an infant. End of discussion. So 11. United States courts have no jurisdiction over man, woman, only artificial persons. United States courts have jurisdiction over their 14th amendment citizen slaves and infants because the infants have not come back and claimed their estate. All they're doing is administering abandoned infant estates. That's what they're doing. Yes.
22:20 Do they also have jurisdiction over artificial persons? Sure. Like corporations and municipalities and all other Are those things also considered persons? Yes. But that is the aspect of the corporate connection to them. You are not an artificial entity nor do you have one. You have an estate which they turn into constructive trusts which are artificial entities. But the person itself is not some sort of artificial entity with say its own little corporate structure. Right. 12. Most traffic tickets are infractions. True. And they're also being run through probate court which we talked about last time. 13. You cannot be put in jail for an infraction. Well, I guess I would No. Well, that's true. One of the people
23:07 cannot be put in jail for an infraction. That's true. Infants. Yeah. You have a contract with them, particularly like the driver's license, then you've agreed to be put in jail from them because you've agreed to adjudicate those matters in a Nissi Prius court. And for those of you who don't know what Nissi Prius means, Nissi Prius means a court of prior agreement. So if you weren't into if you entered into a contract with someone, say your neighbor, and in the contract it said that he was going to pay to paint the house, you agree to paint the house, and if you don't paint the house, he gets to drag you before 12 of his buddies, which are named in the contract, out into a public park, and
23:53 they get to stone you. Okay, that sounds crazy, but that's contractual. Everything that you do contractually waves your protected rights, both state and federal. Why is that? It's because both the state and federal constitutions both have clauses in them that state that there shall be no law passed abregating the right of contract. That means you can contract your ass into whatever stupidity you find yourself. The point is remove yourself from the contracts. All right. 14. You can plea bargain with the judge to cut down your fine against you. Yeah, sure. Can also do it with the disc attorney.
24:38 15. You cannot be put in jail for an infraction. They have no way to collect the fine. Well, that's a good point. Jerome Daily case proves that Federal Reserve notes have no law of consideration. And there's also the famous Peanut case dealing with uh mortgage foreclosure where a man argued to the hilt that Federal Reserve notes had no lawful consideration. Finally got the judge so pissed off that he said, "I don't care if you pay in peanuts." And the guy said, "I accept your offer of contract." Right after the judge said that. And he literally came in the next day with like 80,000 peanuts. And it that was contractual. He they had to let him go. I mean, they had to let him keep the house and they had to take the damn peanuts. And yes, that's serious because
25:25 if you say something in court or if the judge messes up in court and says something or doesn't say something, yeah, you can lock it down because remember this is all contractual. 16. The judge will try to charge you with contempt or coers you to pay the fine. That's true. And if those two things don't work, he'll threaten you with putting you in a a sane asylum. 17. You cannot be lawfully charged with contempt unless you are disrespectful to the judge. You can also be charged with contempt if you don't if the infants don't follow the inferior court's orders. That's another way to do it, too. And that's not just being disrespectful to the judge. 18. You cannot pay the fine. They have to let you go because you cannot be put in
26:11 jail. Uh, that's true. That's an aspect of no debt prisons. So, that's true. 19. They may summons you back to court again to pay the fine again. Sure. Fine. Again, just infants. Since they cannot put you in jail and you obey all summons, they will give you up because they want the money and you are wasting the court's time. Well, sometimes it depends how much and how badly you've pissed them off really cuz they're all this all these inferior courts are just about control. It's all they are. Just forcing you to obey. Be good little infants. 21. Search Yahoo or Google under Crown Temple to see who owns you and your property. Well, that yeah goes back to the city London. 22. Under Ammony law, you cannot have a
26:57 fully informed jury. I don't agree with that one. That would have to be proved because I can't think off the top of my head any place where that is ever stated, nor does it even make any sense. Anyway, 23. Common laws law of the people. True. Uh 24. That's just Ed Rivera site. Good site though. 25. Amulty law is the king is is the law of the king or sovereign. True. Well, as is all law that's decreed by a king or sovereign. So, that's kind of a misnomer. 26. Most Americans are no longer sovereigns. They are subject slaves. Incorrect. You can't lose your sovereignty, but you can certainly wave it. Um, or fail to claim it. Let's put
27:46 it that way. Because if you never claim your estate, you can never be part of the posterity spoken of in both the state and federal constitutions. Therefore, you can't be seen as a fellow member of the periage because you haven't claimed your title. So, that's how that works. 27. All courts in America are territorial courts under congressional jurisdiction. Uh, I would say that's probably true in some cases. I don't think it's true in all of them because the rest of them are just private for-profit corporations doing their thing. Okay. So anyway, interesting little side check there for and that was
28:31 under the de facto side under more information under defendant. Okay. Accusation. Back to the dure side here. Accusation claim other terms used true bill liable or injury. Okay. Well, all right. So, information complaint. Do I have accusation here? Okay, I do. All right. Accusation criminal law. A charge made to a competent officer, meaning a magistrate or cop or judge, whoever, against one who has committed a crime or misdemeanor, so that he may be brought to justice and punishment. Definition two, a neglect to accuse may in some cases be considered a misdemeanor or mis prison. That's true.
29:16 And also an interesting aspect of that is what's called miss prison of felony. So if you know that someone's committed a felony and this aspect works both at common law and in equity in under the United States code as well. So, missprison a felony. If you know someone committed a felony and then you fail to report it, then you can be charged as well, which of course that happens every single day in Washington DC without question. But nobody ever comes down on them for mispresent a felony because once that card at the bottom of the house of cards got pulled, all the rest of them would fall pretty quickly because you could just wrap them
30:03 all up with just that single use of that single statute. Or I should say US code, but anyway. All right. Number three, meaning definition of accusation. Number three, it is a rule that no man is bound to accuse himself or to testify against himself in a criminal case. True. That's fifth amendment. Okay. And then the next is claim. A claim is a challenge of ownership of a thing which a man has not in his possession and is wrongfully withheld by another. Now he's saying on the website claim is other terms used true bill or liable. Well no a true bill is something in equity. A declaration is something at law and then
30:50 a liable is just a form of action which you can do at law or in equity. So injury is a wrong or a tort and injuries are divided into public and private and they affect the personal property or real property. And the difference between personal property and real property if nobody knows real property is the land. Personal property is your motorcycle. And then next definition under injury, they affect the person absolutely or relatively. The absolute injuries are threats and menaces, assaults, batteries, wounding, mayhem, injuries to health by nuisances or medical malpractice. And then period, those affecting reputation are verbal slander,
31:36 liables, which is written, and malicious prosecutions. and those affecting personal liberty are false imprisonment and malicious prosecutions. The relative injuries are those which affect the rights of a husband. Those are abduction of the wife or harboring her, adultery and battery which those affect the rights of a parent as abduction, seduction or battery of a child and of and then semicolon and of master meaning your m. This one really doesn't apply anymore, but this and it's not just master slave. That's not what that means. It means when you used to have apprentices and masters, this is kind of what this is getting at. Uh and of master seduction, harboring and battery of his apprentice or servant. Period. Those which conflict
32:22 with the rights of the inferior relation, namely the wife, child, apprentice, or servant are withholding conjural rights, maintenance, and wages. meaning that that's something that the the inferior relation of those stated can sue as an injury against the superior. So, hey, you're not letting me have my rights. Hey, you're not paying me. You know, whatever you said you going to pay me, so on so forth. All right. So, next definition of injury. Okay. Injuries to personal property are the unlawful taking and detention thereof from the owner. So, he took someone's dog and didn't give it back. And other injuries are some damage affecting the same, meaning he beat the dog up or whatever, while in the claimant's possession, or
33:08 that of a third person, or injuries to his revisionary interests. Uh, and the revisionary interest to, okay, let's say a cow instead of a dog because then it makes more sense. Okay? Or even a horse, that's even better. Okay? So, a revisionary interest. So you somebody stole your horse, you sue him for the horse and for the loss of income that you suffered during the time that he had the horse because you couldn't plow your field, right? That's kind of what that's about. And then next one, injuries to real property. And this again, real property is dealing with the land. So ousters, which I won't get into, trespasses, everybody knows what that is. nuisances, waste, uh subtraction of rent, disturbance of right of way and
33:53 the like. And then injuries arrive. Injuries arrive in three ways. By non-feasence or that not doing what is legal obligation. Basically, you didn't fulfill a contract or duty or contract to perform. And then misfeasence or the performance in an improper manner. Say you painted the house but you painted it green instead of blue of an act which was either the party's duty or his contract to perform. Malfeasants or the unjust performance of some act which the party had no right meaning you came and painted the house but he decided to steal the gutters or which he had not contracted not to do. And and then there's private right and individual right regarding injuries which I won't get into because injuries
34:39 go on for a while here like quite a while in the definition. So anyway um or sorry yeah that okay so all of that was just injury wrong or tor. So that's injury on the common law side. So injury civil law is the other side of it in a technical sense. What? Actually, no. Hold on. That doesn't make sense because some of these were referring Oh, that's right. You can take care of contractual matters at law. Never mind. Um, okay. So, injury civil law in the technical sense of the term, it is a delicit committed in contempt or outrage of anyone whereby his body, his dignity, or his reputation is maliciously injured. Injuries may be divided into two classes with reference to the means used by the
35:26 wrongdoer, namely by words or by acts. And the first are called verbal injuries, the latter real. A verbal injury when directed against a private person consists of uttering tumultuous words, which tend to expose his character by making him little or ridiculous. funny. Where the offensive words are uttered in the heat of a dispute and spoken to the person's face, the law does not presume any malicious intention to the utterer whose resentment generally subsides with his passion. Well, maybe not always. And yet, even in that case, the truth of the injurous injurous words seldom absolves entirely from punishment. Yeah. Well, to talk about the a verbal injury is kind of ridiculous because it's kind
36:12 of getting into, oh, you hurt my feelings. I'm a leftwing communist. You're wearing a MAGA hat. That that hurts me. Ouch. Right. Well, okay. the verbal injury thing. Really, what it really comes down to are aspects of like threats or stating something that destroys a person's character in say a very public setting. Those are things that yeah, someone could sue for, right? But it's not like, oh, I feel I feel so horrible because you're wearing a MAGA hat. No, sorry. Doesn't work. Okay. So anyway, all right. So that's
36:58 injury. I'll just stop at that. Okay. So the next thing over here. All right. So charge. So he has on the dure side accusation claim injury. And on the de facto side he has charge. Well, okay. Let's check this out and see if this fits here. Charge practice. The opinion expressed by the court to the jury on the law arising out of a case before him. Okay. So I don't see anything there regarding equity or inferior courts necessarily. Then second definition, it should contain a clear and explicit exposition of the law when the points of the law in dispute arise out of the facts proved on the trial of the cause. That's just
37:43 determining if the law applies basically, which is up to the jury if it's in a court of record and you've demanded a general verdict. Um, okay. To continue, but the court ought at no time to undertake to decide the facts for those are to be decided by the jury. True. Okay. So, that's just the definition of charge. There's nothing there that says it's de facto. Nor is there anything there that even says that it's necessarily automatically an aspect of admulty equity maritime any of it. Anything that would be an inferior court to a court of record. So yeah. All right. Next one.
38:29 RIT. RIT practice a mandatory precept issued by the authority and in the name of the sovereign of the state, which by the way is you. if you happen to issue an original writ and there's all kinds of different kinds of writ but um like a writ that you that we would do would be an absolute judicial extraordinary prerogative writ of say mandamus or habius corpus or cloto right because they're coming from the sovereign they're absolute they're judicial because that's just basically what rits are and they're prerogative because well we feel like it Okay. Okay. So, a writ again a mandatory precept issued by the authority you and in the name of the sovereign of the state which can be done
39:17 by an attorney general as long as they write it that way that this is done in the name of the people of the state of Alabama. Okay, that's fine. But that's why they have to write it like that. by the way for the purpose of compelling the defendant to do something therein mentioned two it is issued by a court or other competent jurisdiction again other competent jurisdiction is you and is returnable to the same meaning give it to the sheriff they go serve it it gets returned back to you and a copy to the court it is to be under seal and tested meaning that's properly pronounced tested paid by the proper
40:04 officer. So, what seal? What seal should it be under? Uh, your house seal. Yeah. And then if you want it also sealed by the court that you're running it through, that's fine, too. But technically, the seal of your superior court is your house seal. If you don't have one, get your status docs done. I explain how to do that. Okay. Okay. And then and is directed to the sheriff and or other officer lawfully authorized to execute the same which is coroner and in some certain situations marshals or your own judicial coroner or your own special masters can also do it. Okay. So then types of rs are original of men's process or min men's process that means middle process which isn't really
40:51 something that's really done anymore. And that gets into the whole aspect of common law procedure which I don't want to open up right now. And and then three of execution. So you have a rid of execution is like the final thing. It's like the final decision from the court. It's all signed. It's sealed by you. Everybody knows what happened. Go get your horse sort of thing. Okay. And then there are several kinds of rits. some of which are mentioned below which I just cut all out because rits in Bouvier's law dictionary go on for a long time so I didn't want to burden overly burden you guys with all those different types of rits but they are interesting and if you want to read all of them from Bouvier's law dictionary feel free to join the vocational science of freedom by simply going to vocational
41:38 scienceofreedom.org or download the welcome package, get on the revolt server, and then you can find the mega link for the reference section of the vocational science of freedom members online library, which has not only all of Boo's, but all of Blacks and a lot of other reference material free to download. Okay, so let's see what the this side says on the website here for the dure. So writ form of written command in the name of one in authority such as a sovereign such as a member of we the people true that's what I said some examples are as follows rid of habius corpus rid of mandamus rid of prohibition rid of cert which is just
42:23 it's certari but it's always shortened to cert order demanding the record which is also what you put into the supreme court even though they they call it a petition for cert they don't really call it a writ anymore. more. But anyway, I was going to be interested in what would happen if somebody did properly file an original writ of certi to the Supreme Court. I always wondered if they had to move that up and take that first. But anyway, uh then it says, "Although most definitions today only mentions that rits can be issued by a judge or are a court order, in reality almost anyone except US citizens can issue such rits. Rits are tools of the common law."
43:08 That's true. I fully agree with that. Okay. So that's writ on the dure side. Now he's saying motion is de facto. But he's saying this. So on the website it says a formal application to a court so-called judge for its order, ruling, judgment or decree. That's Valentine's. Okay, fine. And then a motion must be supported by an affidavit, but the affidavit cannot be read during the hearing. Okay. So what does Bouvier say? So motion practice an application to a court by one of the parties in a cause. Okay. Or his counsel. Okay. doesn't say attorney says council in order to obtain some rule or order of court which he thinks becomes necessary in the progress of the
43:54 cause or to get relieved in a summary manner from some manner which would work in justice. That's true. All emotion is is just asking the court to do something. You move the court to do whatever. You give them reasons why they should do whatever. You give them law to explain why they should do whatever. You give them court holdings to explain that, hey, a thousand judges before you did this, whatever. That's it. You're just moving the court because the court is a dead thing. It just sits there. The judge is not the court. The court is the record basically. But you have to move the court to do something. And yes, even if you're the plaintiff in a court of record, you still move your
44:40 own court. Perfectly fine. So anyway, definition two, when the motion is made on some matter of fact, it must be supported by an affidavit that such facts are true and for this purpose, the party's affidavit will be received, though it cannot be read on the hearing. Oh, okay. So even Well, that's odd. So Bouvier says that as well. It cannot be read on the hearing. Huh. So they do both say that. That's odd because I know men that have done that. Well, maybe they weren't supposed to. Anyway, okay. So that's motion. So again, there's nothing here regarding emotion that's automatically de facto. Sorry, not true. All right. Does your side emits rits rits of
45:27 error presents oneself and then venue and then in law. Okay. So dure emits rits submits documents. Well, more like files things into an inferior court that they never look at. That's pretty much the submission and then a rid of error on the djour side and then appeal on the deacto or so he says. So what does Bouvier say about appeal? Appeal practice the act by which a party submits to the decision of a superior court a cause which has been tried in an inferior tribunal. Okay. So, that's just an inferior and
46:12 superior aspect of say you had something at a municipal court and then you appeal it to the state district court or the state supreme court. Fine. Now, is that automatically some aspect of equity or some aspect of Roman civil law? Kind of. Sort of. I mean, I would I would say that that one probably has certainly the look and feel of the other side because a rid of error is definitely only a deer thing that you do on that side because in a rid of error, you're actually stating that the court itself made an error because they did XYZ. basically with a rid of error. What you're basically doing is suing the
46:58 court to fix the error. Okay, which is definitely something entirely different than an appeal. Okay, so then to continue over here with Bouvier's. So definition two, the appeal generally enols the judgment of the inferior court so far that no action can be taken upon it until after the final decision of the cause. Its object is to review the whole case and to secure a just judgment upon the merits. Three, an appeal differs from proceedings in error, which is the rid of error, which is what I just said. Under which the errors committed in the proceedings are examined, and if any have been committed, the first judgment is reversed. True. Because in the appeal, the whole case is examined and tried as if it had not been tried before. That's an interesting way to put that. Yeah. Because Yeah. Because appellet
47:44 courts have the capacity to fix, alter, reverse anything that the inferior court did. So yeah. Okay. That's true. I get that. All right. So that's appeal. So again, is there anything absolutely there? Okay. Aside from the fact that I'll say this, you cannot appeal anything from a court of record that was done correctly by jury trial. that I will completely agree with because that's stated in the federal constitution clearly. So, and that's also the aspect of double jeopardy. So, once a deer court of record and a jury thereof decides both the facts and law in the case, then
48:30 that's it. It's done deal. Okay. Okay. So, venue. Venue is is a place the county of which the jury are to come who are to try the issue. Okay. So, Bouvier says the venue is the county from which the jury are to come. Okay. So, literally same thing. Number two, as it is a general rule that the place of every traversible fact stated in the pleadings must be distinctively alleged or that some certain place must be alleged for every such fact. It follows that a venue must be stated in every declaration. And again, a declaration is part of the original writ and part of the action that goes with it. And that makes sense because you have to say, "Hey, so and so broke such and such
49:16 law." Well, where'd he do it in Germany? I mean, you have to state the venue. Three, in local actions in which the subject of a thing to be recovered is local, meaning the horse at your neighbor's house, the true venue must be laid. True. because you can't invoke a jurisdiction in another location without stating it in the original action. Among those are real actions and actions which arise out of some local subject, the violation of some local rights or interest as the common law action of waste, trespass, trespass for nuisance to houses and lands, disturbance of right of way, obstruction or division of ancient water courses so on so forth. Four, in a transitory action, the plaintiff may lay the venue in any county he pleases. Okay. All right. So,
50:04 what the hell is transitory action? That's that's something like, hey, the guy stole my semitr, but he might be three states away. That becomes a transitory action because the thing that he took is on the move basically. And Senate says that he is he may bring suit wherever he may find the defendant and lay his cause of action to have arisen there even though the cause of action originated in a foreign jurisdiction. Right. So, he stole it in New York, but you found him in Arizona. Whatever. You can initiate the suit in Arizona. Okay. Then, what else we have down here? I'm just going to skip down. Okay. This one is kind of correct. On the dure side, he says, "Man, woman, child, one of the people, a living soul, flesh and blood." Okay, I
50:50 will agree with one of the people. That without question, I'll agree to that one. However, I don't tend to use man, woman, child in doc in my documents. I'll say free man or free woman, but I won't just use the term man because there's a couple places in Roman civil law, I believe it's part of the US code, where it talks about man and other animals. And that was a case that um a gentleman by the name of Alfred Addis brought in Texas and he said, "Hey, look, none of the US code applies to me because you define man is as an animal." He's like, "I'm not an
51:36 animal." And that was a really big hubbub. I believe you can still find that case. I think I might even have it. But anyway, that's why I don't just use the word man. I'll say freeman because that has a different definition. But on the dure side, one of the people is a good and proper thing to say. I like to say, at least on paper, one of the people of the several states of the American Union because then you know you're talking about the republic. You also know that you're talking about the people within that republic who are automatically sovereign. So that's the way I like to say it. And then on de facto side, we have person. That one is definitely a no
52:22 no. Never call yourself a person. Defined as a corporation, trust, partnership, artifici artificial legal entity. Wrong. It's defined as an infant. I just read that again. It's one USC subsection 8. And I'll put it in the chat in case anybody out there wants to go look it up and verify it because it's true. Not to mention, I haven't harped on this enough times over the years, but nonetheless, it's always important to keep that one specifically saved. Okay. Oh, I just saw something in mega chat number said, "How how do you do number 21?" Oh, were you referring to the the list in the stuff? Which one was
53:07 21? Uh, search Yahoo or Google under Temple Crown to see who owns you and your property. Oh, yeah. See, that one's so vague. I don't even exactly know what what on earth he's talking about. And supposedly this is written by Ed Rivera or composed by Ed Rivera, but I I don't know him to be that that vague, but I don't know. And I don't even know what exactly what he's referring to. like owns what? Owns the Bar Association. Owns the United States Federal Corporation. Owns what? I I don't even know exactly what he's getting at. So, yeah. Don't know.
53:52 So, okay. So, venue did Oh, man, woman. That's where we're at. Person. Okay. So, person again. Yep. USC subsection 8 uh is an infant, right? Okay. husband, wife or spouse. Couldn't find any verification on this either direction. I did look for them. Nothing I could find in Bouvier that had any specificity. So, so I would just if there's ever a question you can't find it in Bouvier, always make sure that you look it up. Well, even if you can find a movie, always make sure that you look up all definitions within the statutes that they're trying to use against you because the definitions are always stated within the statutes, acts, ordinances, or codes
54:38 themselves. And they're usually stated right in the beginning of said whatever. So always check those first as well to make sure that they don't differentiate from the definitions that you would find in Bouvier. So because then they control when it comes to whatever is defined within the statute. Okay. And again the people mankind. Yep. That's fine. All right. Suie jurist. This is what I was getting down to. All right. Latin of one's own right. One who has all the rights to which a free man is entitled. Hence the reason I use the word freeman. One who is not under the power of another as a slave, a minor and the like again as an infant. Good point. To make
55:24 a valid contract, one must in general be sujurus. True. And this lect law link does not work. So don't even bother clicking on it. But from we have sui jurist. One who has all the rights to which a free man is entitled. That's important. One who is not under the power of another as a slave, a minor and the like. Two, to make a valid contract, a person must in general be sui jurist. Period. Everyone of full age is presumed to be sui
56:09 jurus. What's the opposite of that? To be an infant. So if the presumption is you're an infant, the presumption is you are not suigus. Got it. Okay. Also says appearing on one's own behalf, meaning that you are not beholden to or obligated to anyone in or out of government. Okay. I more or less agree with that. referring to people who present themselves as a living soul in a flesh and blood body presenting the laws and the facts. Okay, you don't need this level of specificity. You're just one of the people and you've been found to be living and you've come a full age. Those things fine. You don't need the whole living soul thing. Flesh and the flesh, the flesh is here and the blood moves or
56:55 whatever the hell some ridiculous people say. Use terms that are actually at law. Okay? You stick to constitutional terms, you'll be fine. And then on the de facto side he says prosay represents oneself in person or in persona meaning mask as a fiction serving as one's own attorney a privilege that can be taken away at any time and he's got a court case here United States versus uh I don't know if I've ever seen that case and then proper short for propri persona meaning proper person since person is a fiction you are telling them you are in your proper mask uh not a man by any means okay
57:41 well yeah that's the thing about the represent part which I think he gets into down here maybe um if you're representing something you're not present so I kind of get that point the other way that I like to say it and if you have to say it in court you're stuck stuck in there. You say to the judge, say, "Your honor, I come before this court as la whatever, whatever the proper terms you want to use, one of the people of the several states of the American Union. I come before this court as having been found to be living. I come before this court as the sole lawful executive of John Henry Doe or whatever the hell the name is on the constructive trust that the court case
58:27 is." Whatever. That's how I stated it instead of worrying about, oh, I'm present or arguing or trying to prove a negative. Your honor, I'm not representing myself. Well, judge is just going to say, what then? What are you representing? So, you always have to be careful with that. You spec you specifically have to be careful with it when you're trying to prove a negative. There's no reason to ever do that. You always want to state what you are, not what you're not. Okay? Okay. And then to move down here. Oh, okay. I was gonna say that misdeclaration. Okay. Here we go. All right. So, affirmation he has on the dur side. Testify to the facts. Written testimony of the facts. Written statement of the
59:13 facts. An affirmation. Okay. It's kind of correct. All right. Declaration to declare by these presents. And then he has a thing in quotes here, but I have no idea. He has no reference as to where it came from. Anyway, quote, "Being of sound mind over the age of 21 years, that's not relevant. Doesn't matter if you're over 21 doesn't matter if you're over 12. Having come a full age means that you can handle your own affairs. It's not a number. And having firsthand knowledge of the facts, stated herein, do hereby tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And herein say, sayeth, declare, proclaim, and claim as follows." Okay, that's a little wordy. Not necessarily incorrect, but I
1:00:00 wouldn't be that verbose about it. Okay, so a declaration, what is what really is a declaration? Let's go to Bouvier's pleading. A declaration is a specification in a methodical and logical form. Most important there is logical of the circumstances which constitute the plaintiff's cause of action. Right? Your cause. Why are you here? Why are you convening a court to take care of this? In real actions, it is most properly called the count, you know, first count, second count, third count. In a personal one, the declaration. So, oh, so in real actions is a count.
1:00:46 Huh. I don't think I knew that before. Interesting. All right. The latter, however, is now the general term being that commonly used when referring to real and personal actions without distinction. Yeah, exactly. So, yeah, they just call it a a declaration. Okay. And then second definition, the declaration in an action at law, which means common law, answers to the bill and chancery, meaning this is what this side's like, that's what that side's like, which is exactly what I said before. At law, you have a declaration. At chance or equity, you have a bill, supposedly a true bill, but you don't want to confuse, okay? You don't want to confuse a true bill in equity that you do yourself with a true bill that comes from a grand jury. Two different things. Okay. But anyway, to continue,
1:01:33 the liel of the civilans and the allegation of the ecclesiastical courts. Okay. So these all right. They're just stating the different terms in different jurisdictions. So you have a declaration at law, bill enchant your equity, liable under civil law or Roman civil law and an allegation of the ecclesiastical courts. At least that's what this says. Which is interesting because when I tried to go look up allegation, I couldn't I don't know if I found it. I couldn't find find allegation anywhere. But at least in the definition here of under this under definition declaration, the allegation of the ecclesiastical courts. So that certainly suggests that an allegation is ecclesiastical, but I would have
1:02:19 preferred to just found the definition of the word, but it wasn't in movie A. So anyway, okay. So next one, affidavit. So he has affidavit on the deacto side, which again I don't exactly agree with, but let's go down and read what it says. Oh, and by the way, I'm not going to read through all of declaration because it goes on forever. There's all kinds of different declarations. There's seven different parts of a declaration, which I told you guys before. So, it goes through all of the proper parts of a declaration. There's seven parts in a declaration and nine parts in a bill in equity. So, it lays them all out in here. Not going to go through all of them, but they're there if you guys want them. Okay. Affidavit practice. An oath or affirmation reduced to writing sworn or affirmed before some officer who has
1:03:06 authority to administer it. It differs from a deposition in this that the latter meaning deposition the opposition party has had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness whereas an affidavit is taken exparte. So a deposition is something you do in front of usually a tape recorder usually both attorneys are there and people get to cross-examine the other parties. Basically what a deposition is for the most part is taking care of these things outside of court in really really big cases where you have say I don't hundreds of witnesses people tend to take
1:03:51 depositions outside of the court so it doesn't take up a tremendous amount of time of the court and then definition number two for affidavit out of is affidavit to hold to bail is in many cases required before the defendant can be arrested. H okay. So that yeah that technically is what should happen in a preliminary hearing which of course they don't do anymore. But if you look it up in any state statute under the criminal code particularly under criminal procedure and this does not deviate from any state period because it's a basis of common law which they can't get out of. So
1:04:36 anyway, what it says is that upon arrest with or without warrant, the accused must be taken directly before the nearest and most accessible magistrate. Now, in some states, it also continues to say that a preliminary hearing must then be had to determine the ability of the court to hold the accused or something to that sense. Because a preliminary hearing is where all right and say it was just you and me that saw some son of a whack a woman over the top of the head with a baseball bat, take her purse and and the guy's like running straight at us, right? So if you and I decide to tackle him and
1:05:22 smash his head into the sidewalk, knock him out, tie him up, throw him over our shoulder, and then walk to the nearest and most successful magistrate for a proper evidentiary hearing to prove that he did such. And we say, "Hey, woman, here's your purse back. Now come with us cuz you're the witness or another witness, right?" And we get to the judge's front door and we drop the idiot onto his back porch and say, 'Look, we caught this guy still in this woman's purse. The woman's here. That counts as a preliminary hearing. I don't give a if it's on his front porch or back porch. Doesn't matter. The nearest and most accessible magister means the the guy you can get to the fastest. It does
1:06:10 not mean that you take him to jail and let him sit there for several days before a magistrate decides to wander his ass to the courthouse. That's not what that means. Never has been what that means. And the reason why is because the second that you take somebody's liberty, you have to explain why you did that. You don't get to punish them before you have that explanation laid down. and recorded in hearing. That's why they all say that. Now, can you whack him over the head for arrest and bring him to the magistrate? Sure, that's fine. You used reasonable force to
1:06:56 arrest. Don't you see cops beating people's heads in all the time to arrest them? Sure. Well, he kept wiggling, your honor. I had to knock him out. Fine. Whatever. That's lawful as long as you're arresting from a standpoint of, "Hey, he caused damage, harm, loss, or injury to someone else. That's fine." Now, am I saying that it's really justified when any of the corporate pigs do it? No. Obviously, because they're not actually following common law. They're arresting people based upon statutes, acts, ordinances, and codes, you know, right? Which is all on the deacto side over here. But anyway, I was just stating that because that's the way things should go down. Okay. All right. So, get back on track here. All right.
1:07:42 Affidavit. So, again, this is okay. Affidavit to hold. Fine. Fine. Fine. Um, indebtedness. Show a distinct cause for action. Three, the whole must be clearly and certainly expressed. Right. You can't have halftruth. This is where you can get a lot of stuff thrown out because cops write so horribly. And then three, an affidavit of defense is made by a defendant or a person knowing the facts and which must be stated on positive ground of defense on the merits. Hey, that wasn't me. I was over here. Whatever. It has been decided that when a writ of summons has been served upon three defendants and only one appears, a judgment for want of an affidavit of defense may be rendered against it or against them. Okay, that's about like splitting cases. I don't want to get into that. Okay, back to the website. Does your
1:08:29 side says speak the truth. My word is my bond. Cannot swear or make an oath. He's got some Bible passages there. I don't know if that is truly what those say. I've seen people throw Bible passages around a lot, particularly in this field of research. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. Sometimes they are wildly incorrect. But I'm not even going to try to go down that road right now. So speak the truth. Your word is your bond. That's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. doesn't mean it can't be on the on the de facto side as well. But he says on the de facto side it's an oath. Well, no, you can make an oath on a totally dissure aspect. Now, if he's a Christian and he's saying, "Oh, I can't make an oath because it's against the Bible." Well, that's his problem. Doesn't mean it's automatically a part of the de
1:09:16 facto side of law. And then your side says, "I do not accept." He says, "I take exception to that." And de facto says, "I object. Objection please. No, you can object at law. That's not true. Now, the exception thing, I will read that because I very interested in the fact that most people have no idea that after say you object in court, say the judge overrules you or the magistrate, you can say exceptions. Well, most people don't know what that means. So, I'm going to explain it or Mr. Bouvier is going to explain it. So exception practice pleading. This term is used in the civil nearly in the same sense that the word plea has in the
1:10:02 common law. In chancy practice it is the allegation of a party in writing that some pleading or proceeding in a cause is insufficient. Exceptions are dilatory or preempty meaning before or after the thing happened. Dilatory exceptions are such as do not tend to defeat the action but only its progress. Meaning, hey, you screwed something up here. You have to fix it before we can move forward. Uh, declinatory exceptions have this effect as well as the exception of discussion opposed by the third possessor or by a shorty in a hypothecary action or the exception taken in order to call in the warranttor. I don't even know what that would be in terms of to continue. A declar exception is a species of
1:10:48 dilatory exception which merely declines the jurisdiction of the judge before whom the action is brought. Okay. Uh preemp exceptions are those which tend to the dismissal of the action. Some relate to form meaning you didn't file this correctly. Other arise from the law meaning the law doesn't apply to me. those which relate to forms again sorry for the misprint here that shouldn't be an e there uh tend to have the cause dismissed owing to some nullities in the proceedings true like good example of that is a plea abatement okay even though I know we're talking about exceptions here uh these must be
…
