"The Unknowing are Slaves to Liars"

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

"The Unknowing are Slaves to Liars"

Gavilan
I received this through Harry from Akira, hope you enjoy it:

http://commonlaw-network.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=606&p=1603#p1603

"
Presumption - Statutory Tool of Usurpation !

(The Unknowing are Slaves to Liars)

Assumption / Presumption...

What's the difference? It is unclear... at least according to the dictionaries.

Most definitions use the respective word in the definition, or the other interchangeably.

Definitions:

http://dictionary.reference.com
Assumption

    1. something taken for granted; a supposition: a correct assumption.
    2. the act of taking for granted or supposing.
    3. the act of taking to or upon oneself.

Presumption

    1. the act of presuming.
    2. assumption of something as true.
    3. belief on reasonable grounds or probable evidence.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/assumption
Assumption

    1 The act of taking to or upon oneself: assumption of an obligation.
    2 The act of taking possession or asserting a claim: assumption of command.
    3 The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
    4 Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.
    5 Presumption; arrogance.
    6 Logic A minor premise.
    7 Assumption
        a Christianity The taking up of the Virgin Mary into heaven in body and soul after her death.
        b A feast celebrating this event.
        c August 15, the day on which this feast is observed.

Presumption

    1 Behavior or attitude that is boldly arrogant or offensive; effrontery.
    2 The act of presuming or accepting as true.
    3 Acceptance or belief based on reasonable evidence; assumption or supposition.
    4 A condition or basis for accepting or presuming.
    5 Law. A conclusion derived from a particular set of facts based on law, rather than probable reasoning.



Despite my research... a clear & precise definition, worthy of a white paper, alluded me for some time...

Until, ironically enough, I read my Bible.... a Regency King James Bible #881CBC

And there, on page 90, at Exodus 21:14,

"If a man comes presumptuously* upon his neighbor...."

a note in the margin, read: *Premeditated

Presumption = Premeditated Assumption !

"Presume. To assume beforehand." - Black's 6th pg 1185

So a presumption is a premeditated or preconceived assumption, rather than an assumption made in the moment.
(had a law dictionary reference that said preconceived assumption, but darned if i can't find it)

"Praesumptio. Lat. Presumption; a presumption. Also intrusion, or the unlawful taking of anything". - Black's 6th pg 1174

The Latin definition reveals the true nature of the word... presumption is THEFT !!
Also, presumptions are typically made in favor of the one making them.

There are typically 2 crimes / trespasses in presumption....
the first is usurpation....

    "Don't worry... the weather will be fine for the picnic on Saturday"
    1) usurpation of control, over God's or Mother Nature's authority over the weather..


more typically however.... presumption includes not only

    the 1st crime / trespass.... the usurpation of authority...
    but a 2nd crime / trespass... the theft of property, as well...


"Oh Bob's not around... he won't mind if i borrow his weed whacker..."

    1) the usurpation of Bob's authority to make a decision about his property...
    2) the theft of Bob's property...


"Presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption" - Black's 6th pg 1185

Now it's Bob's burden to show his friend his presumption was not "okay"...

or put a different way....

you and i are hiking up a dirt road, with heavy back packs on...
we stop for a minute and i ask you to hold my back pack...
then i run up the road, turn around and say...
c'mon... it's only a bit further... while you continue to hold my backpack..

i have usurped your authority to choose whether to carry my backpack...
and transferred the burden to you...without permission....
leaving you to carry two backpacks... this is injury... trespass.. and crime.


Presumption in the Bible

Moral Precedent: Presumption = MORTAL SIN

Let's return to Exodus 21:14

    " But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die."


"If a man come presumptuously (premeditatively) upon his neighbor"

"to slay him with guile" = "overcome him with deceit" (the unknowing are slave to liars)

"That he may die" doesn't mean he should be killed... (see: Exodus 21:16)

It means his name is removed from the Book of Life, and he has lost his soul...

It means Presumption is a MORTAL SIN, as is murder, rape, ect.

"If you come premeditatively upon your neighbor to con and deceive him, you lose your soul"

    "And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously." - Deuteronomy 17:13


This includes everyone:


    "But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people." - Numbers 15:30


    "Keep back thy [public] servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression." - Psalms 19:13 [emphasis mine]



Classic Example: Presumptively.. to slay him with guile

I have a beautiful, relatively new automobile... great paint, interior, tires, brakes...
But the engine has a blown rod... it raps like crazy when it's running...
the motor is toast.
Blue book on the car is $9,000.. but to buy and replace the motor... it's worth $1000 tops...

But, being a hot rodder... i know some fine saw dust in the engine oil...
will make that motor purr like a kitten.... for a while.

And my neighbor Bob, doesn't know squat about cars...
and he has $3500 sitting on his night stand at home...

so i decide to come upon my neighbor presumptively....
to slay him with guile...

Look at that interior Bob ! and paint, and tires !! And low miles to boot !!!!
It Blue Books for $9000, and with those low miles... it's worth way more than that !!
But i need cash desperately... so today only.. I'm willing to wholesale this puppy out to you...
for ONLY $3500....

Bob takes the deal... and the next day the motor starts to rap... blown motor...

You get the idea... using a man's ignorance against him....
for self gain / unjust enrichment !


And if all that presumption crap isn't bad enough.....

You government servants have codified Presumption (Mortal Sin) into court procedure !

Presumption: "A Presumption is but a rule of procedure used to supply wants of facts and its only effect is to cast burden on opposite party of going forward with proof." Cichecki v. City of Hamtramck, Mich. 170 NW 2nd 58.


So Let's break this down...

"A Presumption is but a rule of procedure" - In and of itself... a fact that should make any moral, God fearing man run away as fast as possible !!

"used to supply wants of facts" - as it was in common law (fictions of law, see: below)

"and its ONLY effect" - it's ONLY PURPOSE

"is to cast burden on opposite party" = HARM / INJURY
(as it never was in common law)

"of going forward with proof." (<= your new burden without your consent)

For the defendant, that likely means "proving a negative"...

that he "didn't do something."

which is IMPOSSIBLE !! = more harm / injury !

Per rerum naturam, factum negantis nulla probatio est." It is in the nature of things that he who denies a fact is not bound to prove it."

Why?

Factum negantis nulla probatio. "Negative facts are not proof." <==

It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove a negative, as negative facts are NOT PROOF !

It can NOT be done !!

Now the "law" asks impossibilities????? WHAT??

Lex non cogit impossibilia. "The law requires nothing impossible." Co. Litt. 231, b; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 951.

A l'impossible nul n'est tenu. "No one is bound to do what is impossible." 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 601.

Impotentia excusat legem. "Impossibility excuses the law." Co. Litt. 29.

Impotentia excusat legem "Impossibility of performance of a legal obligation is a good excuse."

Nulla impossibilia aut inhonesta sunt praesumenda. "Impossibilities and dishonesty are not to be presumed." Co. Litt. 78.

Another aspect of the question is this:
It being a legal maxim that it is impossible to prove a negative,
the burden of proof is thrown upon those who hold the affirmative of any question to bring forward evidence to support it ;

Witnesses cannot testify to a negative; they must testify to an affirmative.


Under common law, "he who asserts, affirms"...

But not so in the US citizen's statutory jurisdiction !

There, judicial presumption is used to transfer the burden of proof to the defendant....

where you are "guilty until you prove yourself innocent" !

If you've ever been to traffic court... you know what this feels like.

Judge: "i think you did it..."
D.A.: "i think you did it.... prove you didn't do it.."
Defendant: "well i uh...." (you did not "object : impossible to prove a negative" !)
Judge: "Guilty !"


Early Judge's understood they were playing with fire

In the early days of American Common Law, when a judge had a complicated case before him, the initial "story line" would often be erratic, incomplete, and wanting of fact.

BEFORE hearing the case, a judge would make 'legal assumptions' to 'fill in the blanks' and give the story line continuity, until such time as these PREviously ascertained asSUMPTIONS could be replaced with fact from case proceedings, evidence, testimony, ect.

Before rendering judgment, the judge would carefully note any remaining presumptions, that they might be removed, so as not to injure either party.

These premeditated legal assumptions...(presumptions)
these objects of judicial fantasy...
were known as "fictions of law":

"A fiction of law is a legal assumption that a thing is true which is either not true (lie), or which is as probably (<=presumption) false as true; the rule on this subject being that the court will not endure that a mere form or fiction of law, introduced for the sake of justice should work a contrary to the real truth and substance of a thing--never working an injury." Hibberd v. Smith (1885) 67 C 547, 561 4 P 473, 8 P 46, 56 Am.Rep. 726


Fiction of Law = "a thing is true which is either not true, or which is as probably false as true never working an injury";

okay....

so what is... "a thing is true which is either not true, or which is as probably false as true".....
that does "work an injury"?


Presumption / Fiction of Law... with INJURY = ??????

"A false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act on it to his legal injury."

The definition above is...... Fraud - Black's 6th pg 660

There you have it !!!

Fiction of law is a legal assumption.....
(you are the defendant !!! you are a legal fiction... a fiction of law !!!)

if the legal assumption is codified.... it's premeditated & preconceived !!

a premeditated or preconceived (legal) assumption = presumption...
(any codified assumption = presumption = trespass / crime.... and there are MANY !)

Presumption transfers the burden of proof... = working harm / injury

and that's FRAUD !!!

This is why Presumption is a MORTAL SIN !!!

IN FACT.....

PRESUMPTION = NO DUE PROCESS !!

"If any question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him, this is not due process of law." Zeigler v. Railroad Co., 58 Ala. 599 Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.


Nisi Prius Courts

Nisi prius "The nisi prius courts are such as are held for the trial of issues of fact before a jury and one presiding judge. In America the phrase was formerly used to denote the forum (whatever may be its statutory name) in which the cause was tried to a jury, as distinguished from the appellate court."

Nisi prius clause "In practice, a clause entered on the record in an action at law, autho­rizing the trial of the cause at nisi prius in the particu­lar county designated. It was first used by way of continuance."

Nisi prius roll "In practice, the roll or record containing the pleadings, issue, and jury process of an action, made up for use in the nisi prius court." (all Black's 6th pg. 1047)


Nisi Prius courts are just another method for "a man to come presumptuously upon his neighbor to slay him with guile".

In a Nisi Prius court... if you disagree with something someone says, and don't object.... it stands as established...
If a man is an idiot at law... a man who knows law, can have his way with him, as the ignorant man will fail to object, not knowing / realizing he should.

Anytime a man's ignorance is used as a weapon against him... it is Mortal Sin.

For HIS Glory,
Akira

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "The Unknowing are Slaves to Liars"

iamsomedude
Administrator
This post was updated on .
Assumption + Presumption = ACCUSATION

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children. The more they multiplied, the more they sinned against Me; I will change their glory into shame. They feed on the sin of My people And direct their desire toward their iniquity. And it will be, like people, like priest; So I will punish them for their ways And repay them for their deeds. They will eat, but not have enough; They will play the harlot, but not increase, Because they have stopped giving heed to the LORD. - Hosea 4:6-10

Note: in the bible, there is an ABUSE-OF-WORD in Hosea 4:10 regarding LORD (Big L and lower but still capital ORD), but if one goes back to Hosea 4:1, one sees this same ABUSE-OF-WORD: Listen to the word of the LORD, O sons of Israel, For the LORD has a case against the inhabitants of the land, Because there is no faithfulness or kindness Or knowledge of God in the land, which means the ABUSE-OF-WORD regarding LORD (Big L and lower but still capital ORD) is actually referencing the ACCUSER/DEVOURER of whom has a case (ACCUSATION) against the inhabitants of the land ... the SAME thing that happens in a court/corporation: until the ACCUSATION is addressed, one shall not pass into the Kingdom: resistance is futile.

And this the reason as to WHY we are not to judge: ABUSE OF WORD = the ACCUSER/DEVOURER = VATICAN = Earthly GOVERNMENTS and CORPORATIONS = Lucifer (Satan) and Satan was promised by God of his kingdom down here on Earth (reference: John 12:31, Ephesians 2:2, 2 Corinthians 4:4, 1 John 5:19) of which shall be undone by the Son of Man (1 John 3:8) due to Satan's rebellion: jealousy.

This is the REAL deception: Satan convincing the world and its inhabitants to believe Satan does not even exist when Satan is STILL God's GREATEST servant; he outed Job's FALSE-RIGHTEOUSNESS and now cleanses God's children: Satan is akin to Agent Smith from the Matrix.
 
The original post appears to be full of unaddressed assumptions resulting in agreed upon presumptions: ACCUSATION ... the FIRST presumption and assumption is that of regarding any court/corporation was intended to be used for usurpation when all it was used to do was TEST-IF-I can control my ego thru ACCUSATION ... If one even thinks about addressing any of that other stuff addressed in the original posting, the FIRST assumption gives rise to the presumption: ACCUSATION, that one's Ego out of control: doing for glory of self instead of for the glory of the Kingdom, of which becomes AGEEED-UPON-FACT and one is considered dead to God: removed from the Book of Life, as the original post refers (Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 17:13, Numbers 15:30, Psalms 19:13): Pagan = HEATHEN under the Papal Bull and now subject to DOMINION under VATICAN.



This is where (and WHY) the 4 corners came into being:

For the record, I am here for this matter for there is a mistake. Where is the proper notice so I may deal with this mater honorably?

What is the mistake and how would one deal with this matter honorably?

Well, there appears to be quite a few assumptions giving rise to all kinds of presumptions: ACCUSATIONS. Off the top of my head, I can see:

1. BC was issued by something called STATE OF containing something called FIRST MIDDLE LAST (NAME) and according to the Chicago Style Manual Sixteenth Edition (Rules of English Language) this amounts to a GLOSSA of which is a symbolic, debased Latin written under the rules of English: counterfeit, but also an ACCUSATION one agreed to the counterfeiting of one's Heavenly estate here on earth: in servitude to Satan

2. GLOSSA is described in Black's Law 4th Ed as DOG-LATIN: language of the illiterate; BABBLE of a CHILD-OF-BABYLON, thus one gives credence the assumption one agreed to be considered an INFANT when one fails to address the first presumption, agreeing to be a PERSON (see 1 USC 8), thus one's estate (interests) can be taken via that US PERSON NAME and administrated under 26 USC 674 (Treasury Regulation 1.674-b), agreed upon by the failure to address this ACCUSATION one wishes to be considered a PERSON

Reminder: INFANCY is a PERSONAL-PRIVILEDGE (favoritism), and God is no respecter of PERSONS: shows no favoritism (Reference: Acts 10:34, James 2:1, James 2:9, Genesis 18:25, Exodus 18:22, Exodus 18:26, Exodus 23:3, Leviticus 19:15, Deuteronomy 10:17, Deuteronomy 16:19, Romans 2:11)

3. BC is also ledger (account); TOMB-STONE, of which is a public notice of a security being offered under the FIRST MIDDLE LAST name and since that NAME itself is a counterfeit, then the security also being offered is counterfeit, but again, if one does not rebut this ACCUSATION, then the counterfeit is agreed upon and of which one shall receive the "bill" pursuant to 26 USC 2002 as executor of the HEATHEN estate

4. Since the BC is a TOMB-STONE, then the NAME appearing on BC is DEAD (abandoned ledger account), another rebuttable presumption that the NAME has been abandoned by assumption that one never intended to accept Christ, but if one does not rebut this ACCUSATION, then one agrees one is HEATHEN and dead to God, thus a DEBTOR and TRUSTEE under the VATICAN: usufructuary under the Genesis 3 Covenant with the Serpent.

5. One was never to be recognized (bonded for performance) by or through that NAME, that is the duty of the usufructuary: VATICAN, through these earthly GOVERNMENTS and CORPORATIONS, but if one does not rebut the assumption one partook of the Tree of Knowledge, there exists a presumption one intended to reject Christ and thus God, thus ACCUSATION one is of the Curse under Genesis 3: usufruct of the Tree of Knowledge (betrothed to Satan: VASSAL/VESSEL): a HEATHEN, and subject to DOMINION of VATICAN as INFIDEL and to be punished by the followers of ISLAM

These are the main assumptions and presumptions (ACCUSATIONS) one must address and failure to do so means "off with his head" since one is in violation of the 10 commandments and the very first Noahchide Law meaning the ACCUSER/DEVOURER (Lucifer/Satan: prosecutor) has nothing left to prove, one already did it.


Now, if one were ever to find themselves in court, one probably should make sure these presumptions are rebutted the DAY-BEFORE the hearing for this is when probate occurs: the letter of administration is the BC; a private placement security. Then when in court, stick with the 4 corners and then produce the evidence (via Chicago Style Manual and Black's 4th): the MISTAKE, that it appears someone is attempting to run counterfeit securities via liquidation of statutory liens upon an insurance contract: one as surety, thru this court and one will have no part in what these people and/or PERSONS are attempting to do and to protect the integrity of this court one should ask the court or even the prosecutor to consider taking proper action in the interest of justice.

This of course is just a recommendation should one find themselves in court, but in no way do I condone voluntarily setting foot in that hell-hole for JUST-ICE: one will have a snowball's chance in hell





Now, the kicker is there is nothing WRONG with what these guys are doing in court/corporations, per se, and they really are not lying. This is all a TEST-IF-I can control the ego: the test of JOB, and is done with the blessings of God to ensure God's children have PURE hearts, not just .999; every jot and tittle must be accounted (Matthew 5:18).

These people running the courts/corporations are inherently capitalists; all predators are, and they see the opportunity to capitalize on one's ignorance (reference Hosea 4:6-10), but the ADMINISTRATION of the NAME ledger is correct. This is how Adam, the living man, is ACCOUNTED-FOR while using the estate of Eden by the Vatican (servant/trustee by Covenant with the living God and thus Adam, the living man, thru Christ) and of which the VATICAN (GOD of the DEAD: underworld: Hades: Sheol) is usufructuary and debtor through the earthly CORPORATIONS and GOVERNMENTS to Adam, the living man.

The DECEPTION comes into play only thru the ignorance (self-deception) of Adam: living man, because Adam allowed Eve: freewill ego choice ("the bitch"), to make one's decisions and masculine energy NEVER allows the feminine energy to take the lead: violates natural divine law, which gives rise to the DEATH-OF-ADAM (see Genesis 2:17) and subjects ADAM under the Curse and Covenant of the Serpent under Genesis 3 (DEBTOR to the VATICAN: usufructuary of the Tree of Knowledge: VASSAL and VESSEL for Satan).

 
~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.