Short educational video explaining Law and Legal system. Not legal advice. To help educate you on your journey through the minefield. No copyright please feel free to share.
Thank you so much Bill for all that you do to keep us informed. I appreciate all I have learned from the love and care you share. I say love and care because only one such as you, holds those values to do what you do. All your videos are so informative and it is people like you that show the greatness in one. I thank you sincerely once again. Inspired watcher from New Zealand.
remarkable teacher. refreshing to listen to a man with no ego. I'm assuming this information is relevant throughout the entire alleged commonwealth ... thank you Bill for your time and energy.
Legal = Loyal, Loyal to the grantor and beneficiaries of the trust, loyal to the contract. This is in contrast to Law which exists in a higher realm. Nature defines what is Lawful through cause and effect, through chaos or order.
Legal: system operated by Law Society, exclusive to it's members, uses statute, uses force and trickery to entrap Lawful: laws pertain to natural order of things (gravity, watching plants grow in spring, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, etc..), maxims and rules developed by the common law courts
' the little tadpole goes in there and fertilises the egg...' We're all frogs... The '12 Presumptions Of Court' is a great way to understand all this. If in their playground you have to rebut the presumptions which in turn diffuses their presumed authority. As you say, once you complain or protest, it's game over.
GDay Bill great work love to have a Chat or anybody else wanting to discuss Law I am willing .Give me a contact ,unity of thought creates knowledge and strength .I have been fighting for Victorians for many years who are being abused by our States Mental Health evil laws.....best
how can he! for a start you start with your State (legalative not state of being) the rest is essentially the same, I think you may find that the Act of Westminster was grandfathered into your laws - in any event you are still a crown colony! don't mistake that with British or even the Queen, thou she has a role - all roads lead to Rome!!
Hi Bill... quick question; If its the courts duty to explain the law, would this include instructing persons by law how to legally unbind ones self from the system, ie; Birth certificate, driver licence etc..?!
Mz L Leathers, PART 1, The whole point is their courts as you put it, are in fact not courts, but in fact are administrative tribunals. They do not deal in the law, so cannot give you advice, they just treat you as a corporation. Man cannot give evidence, their so called courts if you ask them are they accepting evidence from man/woman today, they would say NO. That`s the whole point, it`s just corporations and they treat you as a corporation, subservient to them. I seen on TH-cam where a man stays "PROACTIVE" all the way through his dealings with two police constables, and gets arrested. If he only knew how to open up court with his evidence and had two bench warrants issued by a magistrate and charge them with a multitude of offences at common law, the magistrate would of ordered the most senior police constable on duty to come and accept those orders. They would not keep a magistrate waiting long, especially if that was a red robed one, let alone a purple one, they live in a paper world, written orders. That man could of done that private prosecution himself swiftly followed by a claim of trespass. But you can guest what happen, because he did not know how to be a man and open up court. They took him to court, one copper said he did not see what is colleague said or done, and just ignored the mans recording the event and believe the other copper, so he was fined and at to pay court costs. Then he appeal it which was a waste of time and money. He became very embittered and disillusioned with the whole process, they cannot tell a man how to be a man, you either know it or not. You must understand this is good against evil, i always tell people to be "PROACTIVE" meaning ( of a person or action) creating or controlling a situation rather than just responding to it after it has happen. You cannot REASON with these people, if they waging war against you and ignoring your rights. Even the infamous Dick Turpin the notorious highway man of the 1730s, he just wanted your belongings, you could not reason with him, he would laugh at you, or probably shot at you. The only difference he wore a mask to disguise himself, these bent copper could not careless, they have their administrative tribunals . I believe only BELLIGERENTS HAVE RIGHTS, i would of become a "BELLIGERENT CLAIMANT" meaning, The individual rights guaranteed by our constitution can be compromised or ignored by our government. For example, in United States v. Johnson,76 f. supp.538, 539(D.Pa.1947), Federal District court judge James Alger Fee ruled that, The privilege against self- incrimination is nether accorded to the passive, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING CLAUSE. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT CLAIMANT in person. McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90,, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L.Ed. 671: Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec 813; Orum vs State, 38 Ohio App. 177, 175 N E. 876. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand , simply loses the protection... He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by Habeas Corpus. Notice the verdicts confrontational language: fighting ,combat, and most surprising, belligerent. DId you ever expect to ever read a Federal court condemn citizens for being passive or ignorant? Did you ever expect to see a verdict that encouraged citizens to be belligerent IN COURT? Clearly, we must do SOMETHING, for as Sir Edmund Burke said, " the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. But apathy (doing nothing) isn`t simply a function of cowardice or indifference; apathy is a synonym for ignorance. What is it apathy or ignorance? I don`t know and i don`t care. Ignorance makes the public more manageable in the courts and in confrontations with the government. Insofar as government naturally seeks to expand its powers at the expense of the citizens rights, government has a vested interest in the public`s ignorance and consequent apathy. The interest is expanding its powers encourages the government to provide little, no, or even false education on what our rights should be. If you are a product (victim) of the public school system then consider this, The Department of education gets what it pays for, and you need to get yourself smart the sooner the better! This is not a good time for dumb-ass. Silence gives consent, is the rule of business life. To stand by, in silence, and see another sell your property, binds you. Silence gives rise to fraud or silence gives rise to agreement. What better way to acquiesce than not to object. Acquiescence is acceptance! " The right of a person under the 5th amendment to refuse to incriminate himself is purely a personal privilege of the witness. it was never intended to permit him to plead the fact that some third person might be incriminated by his testimony, even though he was the agent of such person"- Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43. Not only that but if you allow anyone to "represent you", instead of being " the belligerent claimant in person" (Hale v Henkel, i.s.c) you become a "ward of court". Why? Because obviously, if someone else has to defend your rights for you, you must be incompetent. Clients are called "wards" of the court in regard to their relationship with their attorneys. ALSO, see corpus juris secundum (cjs), volume 6, section 4, attorney and client. Lord Yeshua the Christ said in Luke 11:52 " woe unto you lawyers for ye have taken away the key of knowledge; ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered". and also in Matt 23;13,33 (niv) " You shut the kingdom of heaven in men`s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to... How will you escape being condemned to hell". " a lawyer cannot claim you have rights" U.S. v Johnson, 76 F.Supp. 538. Lawyers cannot defend your rights because they are franchisees of the English bar association, a corporation that licences its franchisees and regulates their activities. All a lawyer can do is get the master of the ship to go easy on you if you confess to the fictional claim against you. A lawyer will not help you prove your sovereignty for fear of being disbarred. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that only a person who can calm his rights is the belligerent claimant in person. To effectively accomplish this you must be able to establish the record with certifable knowledge of the law. END OF PART ONE
Mz L Leathers, part 2, "THE REAL WORLD EXAMPLE" The Frederick, Maryland kidnapping of the baby; We can recall from the Lawrence case that this girl has cross-examined cops before, and knows how to enter evidence to the record of the court. So she went onto the FREDERICK MARYLAND DISTRICT JUVENILE COURT with a script and a game-plan The judge asked four times consecutively,"are you sure you don`t want a court appointed attorney ????" Her only reply was "That she was with TITLE 42 SEC. 1986 CERTIFIABLE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW and she will be representing the name on the docket of the court" The attorney for the state went blah, blah, blah, and when the young mother cross-examined the cops she ripped the cop to shreds like a momma eagle feeds little strips of bloody rabbit flesh to her baby eagles. She turned it into a trail of the state where the cop confessed that he committed at least two felonies. She ask him these questions, 1, STATE YOUR NAME? 2, WHAT`S YOUR BADGE NUMBER? 3, WHAT`S YOUR RANK? 4, WHO DO YOU WORK FOR? 5, HOW DO YOU GET PAID? 6, IS THAT IN THE FORM OF A BANK CHECK, DIRECT DEPOSIT? 7, WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED COMMERCE? 8, WHEN YOU WERE HIRED, DID YOU TAKE AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? Right about there is where the state`s case started breaking down, because the cop said " i took an oath but i don`t know if it was for America"- busted!!!- the judge step in and said "every public servant has to take an oath! Did you get a warrant to enter the motor home?!? and "this is a perfectly competent mother with more care and attention to detail than any other i`ve ever seen. I`m going to order that the state release the child back to the mother immediately." Co-incidentally, the attorney for the state approached her and said that he had spent quite a bit of time at her website and he handed me a hardbound copy of "constitution law" from his personal library. The judge`s personal assistant found the mom at a restaurant later that day and spent half an hour with her over lunch just to tell her that the judge was totally impressed, and that has never happened in the history of FREDERICK, MARYLAND DISTRICT JUVENILE COURT with the suspended rules where anything the judge say goes. She said that the STATE always holds a child for a minimum of 30 days and that is the first time in the court`s history that anyone has proven that the STATE as no claim, Especially a 22 year old single mom. WHY DID SHE WIN, I BELIEVE SHE WON BECAUSE SHE CALLED THEM OUT BY NAME, THEIR WERE CONDUCTING BUSINESS BY STEALTH, AND THEY ARE AN "AGENT PROVOCATEUR" GAINING PROFIT BY MENACE, DISHONOURING THEIR OATH TO UPHOLD THE LAW OF THE LAND. ( THE UNWRITTEN LAW OF REASON, COMMON LAW), COMPANY POLICY IS NOT LAW FACT!. IT NEEDS CONSENT!!!!!
@@peterthompson6651 , everyone must get a certified copy of the original hospital certificate. It's a warehouse receipt belonging to the mother/father not the States franchises/agecies. Transfer the ssn/sin # or any other property including children into a trust. Annavonreitz.com; JeanKeatingLawSchool.com; Satcomm911.com; Anticorruptionsociety.com; Iamsomedude.com; Ecclesia.org and SEDM.org can give further info. Other than that we can record all contracts on the land records and not deal with these criminals under statutes but common law.
Firstly Bill, thank you for articulating this matrrial in such a structured and consice manner. Now, I assume you are qualified to give Lawful advice. (If not me know). Therefore if, for example, Police aproach me with a warrent for my arrest (let's say relating to traffic offences) and I politely and calmly say, "Thank you sir for this invitation but I respectfully decline as I do not consent to this arrest." Will they then obey and comply with my wishes just as the court staff in your example complied with you?
Thank you so much Bill for all that you do to keep us informed. I appreciate all I have learned from the love and care you share. I say love and care because only one such as you, holds those values to do what you do.
All your videos are so informative and it is people like you that show the greatness in one. I thank you sincerely once again.
Inspired watcher from New Zealand.
remarkable teacher. refreshing to listen to a man with no ego. I'm assuming this information is relevant throughout the entire alleged commonwealth ... thank you Bill for your time and energy.
Legal = Loyal, Loyal to the grantor and beneficiaries of the trust, loyal to the contract. This is in contrast to Law which exists in a higher realm. Nature defines what is Lawful through cause and effect, through chaos or order.
Really sorry for that trouble, great to have you back
We love your work and amazing knowledge
Legal: system operated by Law Society, exclusive to it's members, uses statute, uses force and trickery to entrap
Lawful: laws pertain to natural order of things (gravity, watching plants grow in spring, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, etc..), maxims and rules developed by the common law courts
Love your work Bill. You are a good man, thank you.
Welcome back Bill, great to see you again.
Very informative and extremely well research Bill.
Joined many more of the dots for Us.
' the little tadpole goes in there and fertilises the egg...' We're all frogs...
The '12 Presumptions Of Court' is a great way to understand all this. If in their playground you have to rebut the presumptions which in turn diffuses their presumed authority. As you say, once you complain or protest, it's game over.
Good Job Bill, your good teaching will help us so much.
Only one issue with this very well made video, I do not wish any 'ADding to VICE' I require lawful counsel
Much appreciated, Bill.
Great work, thank you!
The spirit of the law is also recognised in court..
Also fairness is recognised!
Excellent !
It astounds me that people that work in law are willing to be such parasites
Thankyou for the wonderful videos Bill
Thank you so much
Welcome Back Bill Turner
GDay Bill great work love to have a Chat or anybody else wanting to discuss Law I am willing .Give me a contact ,unity of thought creates knowledge and strength .I have been fighting for Victorians for many years who are being abused by our States Mental Health evil laws.....best
enjoying learning from you and love the humour #ill-eagle
Joanna Dobson
Thats not humour
I'm sure he didn't mean it to be funny
Please forgive my ignorance- but what country are you speaking of?
+Bill Turner
Do a video for the USA/US.
how can he! for a start you start with your State (legalative not state of being) the rest is essentially the same, I think you may find that the Act of Westminster was grandfathered into your laws - in any event you are still a crown colony! don't mistake that with British or even the Queen, thou she has a role - all roads lead to Rome!!
Hi Bill... quick question; If its the courts duty to explain the law, would this include instructing persons by law how to legally unbind ones self from the system, ie; Birth certificate, driver licence etc..?!
Mz L Leathers, PART 1, The whole point is their courts as you put it, are in fact not courts, but in fact are administrative tribunals. They do not deal in the law, so cannot give you advice, they just treat you as a corporation. Man cannot give evidence, their so called courts if you ask them are they accepting evidence from man/woman today, they would say NO. That`s the whole point, it`s just corporations and they treat you as a corporation, subservient to them.
I seen on TH-cam where a man stays "PROACTIVE" all the way through his dealings with two police constables, and gets arrested. If he only knew how to open up court with his evidence and had two bench warrants issued by a magistrate and charge them with a multitude of offences at common law, the magistrate would of ordered the most senior police constable on duty to come and accept those orders. They would not keep a magistrate waiting long, especially if that was a red robed one, let alone a purple one, they live in a paper world, written orders. That man could of done that private prosecution himself swiftly followed by a claim of trespass. But you can guest what happen, because he did not know how to be a man and open up court. They took him to court, one copper said he did not see what is colleague said or done, and just ignored the mans recording the event and believe the other copper, so he was fined and at to pay court costs. Then he appeal it which was a waste of time and money. He became very embittered and disillusioned with the whole process, they cannot tell a man how to be a man, you either know it or not. You must understand this is good against evil, i always tell people to be "PROACTIVE" meaning ( of a person or action) creating or controlling a situation rather than just responding to it after it has happen.
You cannot REASON with these people, if they waging war against you and ignoring your rights.
Even the infamous Dick Turpin the notorious highway man of the 1730s, he just wanted your belongings, you could not reason with him, he would laugh at you, or probably shot at you. The only difference he wore a mask to disguise himself, these bent copper could not careless, they have their administrative tribunals .
I believe only BELLIGERENTS HAVE RIGHTS, i would of become a "BELLIGERENT CLAIMANT" meaning, The individual rights guaranteed by our constitution can be compromised or ignored by our government. For example, in United States v. Johnson,76 f. supp.538, 539(D.Pa.1947), Federal District court judge James Alger Fee ruled that, The privilege against self- incrimination is nether accorded to the passive, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING CLAUSE. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT CLAIMANT in person. McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90,, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L.Ed. 671: Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec 813; Orum vs State, 38 Ohio App. 177, 175 N E. 876. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand , simply loses the protection... He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by Habeas Corpus.
Notice the verdicts confrontational language: fighting ,combat, and most surprising, belligerent. DId you ever expect to ever read a Federal court condemn citizens for being passive or ignorant?
Did you ever expect to see a verdict that encouraged citizens to be belligerent IN COURT?
Clearly, we must do SOMETHING, for as Sir Edmund Burke said, " the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
But apathy (doing nothing) isn`t simply a function of cowardice or indifference; apathy is a synonym for ignorance.
What is it apathy or ignorance? I don`t know and i don`t care.
Ignorance makes the public more manageable in the courts and in confrontations with the government. Insofar as government naturally seeks to expand its powers at the expense of the citizens rights, government has a vested interest in the public`s ignorance and consequent apathy. The interest is expanding its powers encourages the government to provide little, no, or even false education on what our rights should be.
If you are a product (victim) of the public school system then consider this, The Department of education gets what it pays for, and you need to get yourself smart the sooner the better! This is not a good time for dumb-ass.
Silence gives consent, is the rule of business life. To stand by, in silence, and see another sell your property, binds you. Silence gives rise to fraud or silence gives rise to agreement. What better way to acquiesce than not to object. Acquiescence is acceptance!
" The right of a person under the 5th amendment to refuse to incriminate himself is purely a personal privilege of the witness. it was never intended to permit him to plead the fact that some third person might be incriminated by his testimony, even though he was the agent of such person"- Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43.
Not only that but if you allow anyone to "represent you", instead of being " the belligerent claimant in person" (Hale v Henkel, i.s.c) you become a "ward of court". Why? Because obviously, if someone else has to defend your rights for you, you must be incompetent.
Clients are called "wards" of the court in regard to their relationship with their attorneys.
ALSO, see corpus juris secundum (cjs), volume 6, section 4, attorney and client.
Lord Yeshua the Christ said in Luke 11:52 " woe unto you lawyers for ye have taken away the key of knowledge; ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered".
and also in Matt 23;13,33 (niv) " You shut the kingdom of heaven in men`s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to... How will you escape being condemned to hell".
" a lawyer cannot claim you have rights" U.S. v Johnson, 76 F.Supp. 538.
Lawyers cannot defend your rights because they are franchisees of the English bar association, a corporation that licences its franchisees and regulates their activities. All a lawyer can do is get the master of the ship to go easy on you if you confess to the fictional claim against you.
A lawyer will not help you prove your sovereignty for fear of being disbarred. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that only a person who can calm his rights is the belligerent claimant in person. To effectively accomplish this you must be able to establish the record with certifable knowledge of the law.
END OF PART ONE
Mz L Leathers, part 2,
"THE REAL WORLD EXAMPLE"
The Frederick, Maryland kidnapping of the baby; We can recall from the Lawrence case that this girl has cross-examined cops before, and knows how to enter evidence to the record of the court. So she went onto the FREDERICK MARYLAND DISTRICT JUVENILE COURT with a script and a game-plan
The judge asked four times consecutively,"are you sure you don`t want a court appointed attorney ????"
Her only reply was "That she was with TITLE 42 SEC. 1986 CERTIFIABLE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW and she will be representing the name on the docket of the court"
The attorney for the state went blah, blah, blah, and when the young mother cross-examined the cops she ripped the cop to shreds like a momma eagle feeds little strips of bloody rabbit flesh to her baby eagles. She turned it into a trail of the state where the cop confessed that he committed at least two felonies. She ask him these questions,
1, STATE YOUR NAME?
2, WHAT`S YOUR BADGE NUMBER?
3, WHAT`S YOUR RANK?
4, WHO DO YOU WORK FOR?
5, HOW DO YOU GET PAID?
6, IS THAT IN THE FORM OF A BANK CHECK, DIRECT DEPOSIT?
7, WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED COMMERCE?
8, WHEN YOU WERE HIRED, DID YOU TAKE AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
Right about there is where the state`s case started breaking down, because the cop said " i took an oath but i don`t know if it was for America"- busted!!!- the judge step in and said "every public servant has to take an oath! Did you get a warrant to enter the motor home?!? and "this is a perfectly competent mother with more care and attention to detail than any other i`ve ever seen. I`m going to order that the state release the child back to the mother immediately."
Co-incidentally, the attorney for the state approached her and said that he had spent quite a bit of time at her website and he handed me a hardbound copy of "constitution law" from his personal library.
The judge`s personal assistant found the mom at a restaurant later that day and spent half an hour with her over lunch just to tell her that the judge was totally impressed, and that has never happened in the history of FREDERICK, MARYLAND DISTRICT JUVENILE COURT with the suspended rules where anything the judge say goes.
She said that the STATE always holds a child for a minimum of 30 days and that is the first time in the court`s history that anyone has proven that the STATE as no claim, Especially a 22 year old single mom.
WHY DID SHE WIN, I BELIEVE SHE WON BECAUSE SHE CALLED THEM OUT BY NAME, THEIR WERE CONDUCTING BUSINESS BY STEALTH, AND THEY ARE AN "AGENT PROVOCATEUR" GAINING PROFIT BY MENACE, DISHONOURING THEIR OATH TO UPHOLD THE LAW OF THE LAND. ( THE UNWRITTEN LAW OF REASON, COMMON LAW), COMPANY POLICY IS NOT LAW FACT!. IT NEEDS CONSENT!!!!!
@@peterthompson6651 , everyone must get a certified copy of the original hospital certificate. It's a warehouse receipt belonging to the mother/father not the States franchises/agecies. Transfer the ssn/sin # or any other property including children into a trust. Annavonreitz.com; JeanKeatingLawSchool.com; Satcomm911.com; Anticorruptionsociety.com; Iamsomedude.com; Ecclesia.org and SEDM.org can give further info. Other than that we can record all contracts on the land records and not deal with these criminals under statutes but common law.
You want jurisprudence not lawful advice
LAW
Land
Air
Water
Firstly Bill, thank you for articulating this matrrial in such a structured and consice manner.
Now, I assume you are qualified to give Lawful advice. (If not me know).
Therefore if, for example, Police aproach me with a warrent for my arrest (let's say relating to traffic offences) and I politely and calmly say, "Thank you sir for this invitation but I respectfully decline as I do not consent to this arrest." Will they then obey and comply with my wishes just as the court staff in your example complied with you?
AS KING, you are making claims when saying that instead of asking questions.
I wouldn't call Cops Sir. Polite yes but assertive.
.ron avery tax
Who the fuck came up with all this