Are you looking for Solutions for America in Distress

You are in the right place to find out about what is really going on behind the scenes in the patriot movement in America, including solutions from Oathkeepers, Anna Von Reitz, Constitutional Sheriffs, Richard Mack, and many more people who are leading the charge to restore America to freedom and peace. Please search on the right for over 2500 articles.
You will find some conflicting views from some of these authors. You will also find that all the authors are deeply concerned about the future of America. What they write is their own opinion, just as what I write is my own. If you have an opinion on a particular article, please comment by clicking the title of the article and scrolling to the box at the bottom on that page. Please keep the discussion about the issues, and keep it civil. The administrator reserves the right to remove unwarranted personal attacks. Use the golden rule; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Friday, January 6, 2017

ernie-wayne: ter telgte Omnibus hearing January 05 2017

Published on Jan 5, 2017
ernie is a hoot! He wore his Peace Banner (flag) as a cape, and refused to "cross the bar". The courtroom did not have a bar to designate a citizens area as opposed to the court's area, so ernie presumed that to even go through that door would be in effect "crossing the bar". ernie believes that to cross a court's "bar" is to forfeit one's own rightful jurisdiction.

9 comments:

  1. I am sorry here, but what you and these guys advocate here is insane. This will not get him anywhere. He will end up being found guilty. Why, because this stuff does not work. It makes us and our movement look like a bunch of jackasses.

    Dictum of Lord Camden 1765: "If it is law, it will be found in our books".

    None of this crap is found in any books.

    When you actually take the time to learn the law you can and will win.

    Here is the proof...and look at how serious these charges are that I won, against Mr. Hayden and with Langston signing the dismissal, in my brothers case.

    http://pasteboard.co/iZrauUo2b.jpg




    ReplyDelete
  2. And what "movement" would that be?
    Have you read the book by Anna Riezinger called "You know something is wrong when....An American affidavit of probable cause" ?
    If not you need to read it to understand where ernie is coming from.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dear Steven...I agree with you with you partly, but firmly disagree with you on your second point. So let me address that point first, then Ill tell you why i agree with you on your first point. When Lord Camden made that comment back in 1765, we did have (real) law, and real law books to find them in. And thats the whole reason why we finally demanded our "Declaration of Independance" from England in 1776. Everyone back in those days understood law and could find it in any law library. I dare you to find those same books today in any law library. Good luck. Lord Camden would turn in his grave if he knew what they did to the law he understood in his day. The only thing we have left of law today is based only on the "color of law". Thats because they merged "law and equity" in 1938 in a landmark court case : Erire railroad v tompkins. That case effectively destroyed our true constitutional common law courts and replaced every single court today with only "civil" ADMINISTRATIVE (ie Corporate contract law) courts that is based only on the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code)...the bible of Contract Law, which has been adopted by nearly the entire civilized world, and having nothing to do with our constitution at all. So what are these courts adminitrating....simple "the bankruptcy of the United States", and nothing else. And its all controlled by foreign international bankers that have no loyality to any nation or their people. Because the bankers of the world realized long ago that you cant just take over a country by force and expect that at some point they will eventually rise up again and try to overthrow their controllers. So the banks came up with the perfect solution...first take the country over by force, then leave the country completely, leaving only one thing in place to act as a "hidden enemy" within that country acting in silence (as a shadow govt. in actual control) that not one person in a million will ever recognize, because no one understands "MONEY" or any version of it acting as "currency" and "Commercial Debt Instraments" . Officially, the banks created a secret document on the successful take over of any country and controlling it forever without ever going to war with it again. It is called "Silent Weapons, for Quite Wars, which was left accidentally in a copy machine in a highly classified govt. building that went in for repair. And what people , also dont realize is that the "LAW" of any Nation is based on its universally accepted currency and not the other way around. Because if you are using and accepting "colorable"(fake/fiat) money that is worthless(meaning it isnt based on gold and silver), and therefore only "Discharging your Debts" instead of using REAL MONEY, based on true substance(gold and silver) which actually "PAYS" your debts at law, then you have also accepted by implecation the fact that you have chosen volutarily to accept fake (colorable) law. Continue this on next post...

    ReplyDelete
  4. The fact that you find us hard to understand is you have never studied law or money, and the importance of both in world events. So i highly recommend what Paul suggested, that you get and read judge Annas book to bring you up to date on "true history" of this highly complex subject, even if you never use it to your advantage in our courts or at all. Arent you the least bit interested in an honest history lesson. I guarantee you, it will be a better read than the best fictional novel you have ever read. And it isnt a big book. There isnt a better history teacher than judge Anna and there is way too much for me to explain it here on a post. But that said, just because we lose in court or to the IRS or FTB and even simple tickets has more to do with the total corruption of our courts and our elected officials than it does with our knowledge of true law , because we are at "war" to this day still with the Corporate United States(and all its corporate employees) when we come into their courts as "Americans"(foreigners to the UNITED STATES) and therefore their enemies and automatically stacking the deck against us. Not because they hate us or even care about a stupid fishing license or even Ernie himself. Its simply accepted corporate mentality that if we let this one person win, then there will be 5, 10 and possible 100 that will try the same thing and therefore a threat to our orderly way of life, even if it is fraudlent...thats the way they really look at it. In some respects they are right, because everyone in the world wants to be in America. But thats only because the international bankers singled us out as their corporate headquarters to take over the world. So they made sure that here in America, they would share their wealth with us as long as we remained good slaves, obeying all their rules, regulations, and codes, and provide the "perfect illusion" to the rest of the world how great our(actually their) system of govt. can be, if you just submit like US Citizens have done here. But what we dont realize is that when they are finished using us as examples of democracy to the rest of the world to create their true globalist agenda, America will no longer be treated any differently than then the rest of the world. But heres what i agree with you about Ernies approach and other misguided patriots. A true patriot who really understands our court systems and confident of courtroom proceedure, has no need to "grandstand like Ernie is doing. The best way to be effective to win with them is to go in looking just like them or any other attorney....clean cut, dressed up in a suit and tie, and carrying a briefcase even if its empty. That way the judge has to take notice that you may be an active attorney, or worse, an attorney that lost his BAR card and is there to expose some of the fraud of the court and make the judge liable if he is smart enough to corner him into a trap. Trust me, it works. When in Rome, become a Roman. That way not only will you get the respect of the entire court, but other people in court wont view you as a threat. Its absolutly arrogant on Ernies part to defy the whole court and all its employees by walking in with long hair, a beard, and genes and tee shirt, wrapped in a flag like superman. Thats a foolish and immiture thing to do.And being such a big guy, he will immediately be viewed as a threat to everyone, including the sherriff. He already lost the advantage of a surprize attack now. The judge is going to be ready for him.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If he really wanted to not deal with the court, all he had to do is simply "Refuse" all paperwork by the courts that came in the mail and returning it back unopened. Because the court needs two things to actually get jurisdiction...the first is "VENUE"(which is territorial and automatically established when you receive and accept anything in the mail with your name in all capital letters and having a zip code). Jurisdiction is second and will be much easier to get now, unless you know how to judically box with the judge for the jurisdictional prize which he has box for to get it from a patriot who knows how to box. And this doesnt have to get ugly with name calling and shouting and yelling. When a person knows what kind of court hes in and confident of proceederal law, all he has to do is let or force the judge to make the first mistake. Once that happens its your court, not his. The judge is simply trying to get you to except "liability" instead of him. "Liability" is the elephant in the court, and no one wants it. I hope ive convinced you to at least read judge Annas book, even if you dont fight on the front lines. Theres no shame in being afraid of a fraudulent court system. But you can be a tremendous force for good if you ever sit on a jury knowing what is really going on. You could litterally save someones life when the rest of the jury just wants to convict....

    ReplyDelete
  6. Your point is well taken. I agree with you on a lot of things. Except your methods of using this knowledge in court. I am just warning of the "sovereign citizen" stuff. I say that because that is how it is identified by the judges and prosecutors.
    "Judge" Anna might be right. It could and may all be true. But using that stuff in court will put you in jail.
    Him not crossing into the court room did nothing. They just moved on without him.
    I hope he appeals all the way to the supreme court and use his arguments there too. It will be interesting to see their rulings.
    And I have studied law for years. I also fell into the "sovereign citizen" stuff. It got me know where.
    Then I learned "their law" and do code pleading. This works for me as was shown from the link in my previous comment. I got all those charges dismissed by Mrs. Langston. I had Mr. Hayden in a deadlock and he had no where to turn so he just gave up and it forced the Judge to dismiss.
    This was all by using ther Montana and US constitutions and the Montana Code. This is what they recognize.
    If you go into "Judge" Anna courtroom, good luck ever getting there, you can use the laws she recognizes. You and I are stuck in this system.
    Use what works.


    ReplyDelete
  7. Dear brother Steven. Thank you for your comment, it is well received. And I agree with you about a lot of "Patriots". I believe they do these things either ignorantly, thinking that just because they know the Law(or the truth about our courts), they automatically think that the judges are just going to roll over and say...ok you got me, you win. Because they believe what i originally and ignorantly believed....that the courts were going to play using the two doctrines they themselves espouse...with "CLEAN HANDS" and in "GOOD FAITH". And in all these contraversies, legal filings, evidence, witnesses, oral arguements, etc, etc....What happened to the "TRUTH".... I ask that same question to a teacher of a law class at a jr college ,who just happened to be an Active Judge in the Superior court just down the street from me. My brother and i took it on purpose, because we already knew what happened to the courts and law by studying it for years with other patriots. Back then we studied their law more than the stuff the patriots are taught today because this was years ago(at least 20). So, everyone taking that class were in their 20's. We were twice their age and in the workplace for years by then. The judge wasnt ready for a question like that, because 20 year olds are still kids who know nothing yet about life. He was so blindsighted by the question , that he gave yhe most honest answer in probably the first time in his whole career...."Truth"...what truth? You think thats what courts are about???? I couldnt believe what he just said. In fact, we were both in shock. Him for saying it, and me and the rest of the class for just hearing it... He immediately realized what he just said and backtracked a little with the only counterpunch he could quicklky come up with..."I mean, lets face it. Do you really think the defendant or his attorney is telling the truth. So obviously , the DA cant totally play fair either all the time. Honestly speaking, just about everyone in court is lying. So it really comes down to, not who is telling the "truth", but who is lying the least"...unquote!! Hilarious!!!! But this was the whole reason we took that class in the first place. I caught him by surprize one more time after that. He was talking about traffic tickets and things that are really quasi criminal and termed "infractions". Thats when i hit him up with another question he didnt see coming. I asked him ...but isnt all law considered "Civil"(according to the FRCP 1)??. Again, another knee jerk answer without thinking....he said.."no, actually everything is criminal". And he stepped back again. He was just going to tell me why, and just said "you wouldnt believe me anyway", which wasnt true. I did want to hear his case that it is all criminal, but i knew he really didnt want to open this can of worms so i left him alone as a courtesy to him. And je couldnt take the chance of me knowing more than him or exposing the fraud of thr court. But this is our dilemma. The courts in reality are nothing more than elaborithe "banks",with one main difference...." only deposits are allowed. No withdrawals. But even he taught us something i never thought a judge would ever teach to a class of mere citizens who are taking the class as an elective only. He actually went over pleadings....we all know the usual ones, but he actually taught us the only legal method you are allowed to use before a pleading. And its the only one that doesnt give the court "jurisdiction"... Its called a "DEMMURER"(it runs from penal code 1002 to 1012). All the other normal pleadings come after that at penal code 1016.(theres 6 of them).

    ReplyDelete
  8. But you only get one chance at it. You have to do it before you plead or you waived it. And you just waived the most important legal device at your disposal. A "DEMMURER" is the equivilant of what patriots call a "CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE". So part of the problem stems from the fact that we are using terms from the UCC, which they only had one class in while in law school and all of them hated that class. They are all trained using what they are comfortable with...FRCP, the Penal Code and all other codes and regulations. We can use their system if we know where to look. I always tell people they have to learn both types of law so they can be effective in court without complete paranoia setting in. The practice of law is much different than the study of it. And theres only one place you can learn it...by defending yourself in your own case, knowing that you are probably going to lose because of mistakes you make, but benefitting from the experiance of how you lost by going back to court and getting the transcript of your case, which you have no idea how much it will reveil about where you went wrong. They have stamps and mark all the things you did or didnt do in red. Its a remarkable educational tool, which hardly anyone takes advantage of when their case is over. How stupid can you be. continued on next post..

    ReplyDelete
  9. But Steven i saw your case, and you did the worst possible thing you can do in court...you plead "not guilty". I dont know what else you did, but you were lucky if you won like you said. In fact, if you dont demmurer, i would just move the court for dismissal of the case for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted(FRCP 12(b)6).and bypass the pleading altogether. Put it back in his court to answer. Whenever a judge ask me for a plea, i move immediately for dissmissal. He better have a good reason for it..!!! Thats the other thing great about a "DEMMURER". Its not a "Motion" that can simply be denied by the judge. A demmurer has to be either "sustained" or "overuled" and the judge better be ready right there and then to explain why he overuled it because if he says ill mail you my reason latter, you are going to make a strong objection, because he is required to give you an answer before he ask you for a plea. Patroits are hated by judges because we are using a different language(the UCC) instead of what they are used to and taught in law school. But thats not our fault. Everyone gives way to much credit to judges about their knowledge of law. They make tons of mistakes to if you care enough to ever go get your court transcripts. When i got mine the last time, the judge had secretly "nunc pro tunct" it at least 6 times, which means i won 6 times because he made the mistake, not me.

    ReplyDelete

Place your comment. The moderator will review it after it is published. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason.