Love for Life

And so not to forgot this case.... cut and pasted from here: http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/4890 - A Lesson In Admiralty Law - How To Cause The Magistrate & Prosecutor To Panic And Walk Away - End Of Case

[Note: Notes at bottom have been updated 18th June 2008 9.55am - Arthur Cristian - Love For Life Campaign]

-----------------------

Hi fellow freedom seekers,

Today was Brian's day at Dandenong Magistrate Court, and what a first time performance he put in. He actually took the magistrate. and prostitutor (prosecutor) by surprise as he had not 'reported to the general enquiries desk on his arrival, however it appears evident to us that they only want you to do that so that the prostitutor can contract you prior to the defendant being called.

Anyhow he told the magistrate that he wanted to plead guilty to the facts.

The look on the mag's (and the prost's) faces was a mastercard moment.

Priceless.

He immediately tried to intimidate Brian into agreeing that he wanted to plead guilty to the charges!

Now WHY would he insist that Brian had to plead either guilty or not guilty to the charges if there was no difference between charges and facts?

Brian stuck to his guns and did not waiver from his stance.

However, after the mag got really frustrated, telling Brian that he was trying his patience and got quite red in the face, it was obviously a Mexican standoff.

At that point the prostitutor jumped in and offered that the mag do a short adjournment to allow him to discuss the case with the deft out in the foyer.

Well the prost wanted to plea bargain and offered to withdraw the 'Dog at Large in Daylight Hours' charge if Brian was prepared to nod the scone to 'Fail to Re-register Dog' charge.

So after a few minutes discussion Brian decided that on this occasion, his first ever time at court, that he would accept the prost's offer.

Back in the court, the mag, whom we expected to still be burning up inside, went through the motions of striking out the first offer, and then blow me down if he didn't say 'I find the case proven without proceeding to conviction OR FURTHER PENALTY.'

You should have seen the prost scrambling to his feet to put in the council's claim for costs!

Shit it was funny.

So all in all, Brian went from facing nearly $400 in fraudulent claims that most unfortunate slaves end up paying with barely a wimper, to only $62 in costs.

What we learned most of all today, was what Mark stated heaps of times last w/e,

'You must break their presumption!'

The only thing Brian didn't remember to do was to break their presumption that he and the deft (defendant) were one and the same.

Other than that he did very well for a first time appearance.

But very importantly Brian's performance was more than enough to make them feel the ground tremble under their feet. Even to the extent that the prost chased us up the street wanting to find out if Brian intended advising others about how to deal with them.

Next it's my own turn at the same venue on June 30.

My biggest challenge will be to not let them engage me in argument!

Warm Regards,
Michael.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rough Explanation Of What is Happening Here
by Arthur Cristian
Love For Life

Note: To break their (The Rules - Statutes) presumption is determining the courts jurisdiction over i.e. the fiction (The Strawman) and their alleged jurisdiction over the living flesh and blood Man.

What Brian achieved was this......

If you were driving in a 60ks per hour zone doing 70'ks per hour, the Magistrate can only see the charge (the $ - the fines - the fees in line with the statute which is the rule within a society that allegedly has the force of law),........

but the magistrate is unable to look at the facts...

i.e, did anyone get hurt or get injured [the STATE is alleging that you harmed or injured the STATE] and if so could he or she please stand before the court and make a claim that they were hurt by you driving 70ks per hour in a 60ks per hour speed limit zone.

Obviously no real flesh & blood Man can STAND.

"Its a Fictitious entity" we are talking about here (prosecutor, magistrate STATE, statutes etc are all fiction)

And this why the the magistrate and the prosecutor were panicked because Brian was saying yes I am guilty to the facts so please lets look at the facts..........

whooooooo Under Admiralty Law everything is looked upon as commerce and the rules (statutes) sees everything in $ and Maritime contract, as the presumption is that Brian is in their ship not in facts (evidence) which requires a jury.

Breaking the presumption is saying that you are not on/in or part of their their ship at sea.

If you defend a claim against you, the state sends in its prosecutor (prostitute) who has no claim because he cant STAND and so they (including magistrate) can't see the facts. What Brian did, is agree guilty to the facts and not the charges, causing the magistrate & the prosecutor to panic,.......

remember THEY CAN ONLY BRING FORWARD A CHARGE.

Breaking The Presumption

In Admiralty Law he/she is breaking the presumption... i.e.

When you bring your case forward for their non-disclosure of material facts, i.e...... the charges against you, when you, the living flesh and blood Man were not even on the ship.

So therefore you say "I Plead Guilty To The Facts" which causes the magistrate/prosecutor etc to disclose the facts or to have the facts disclosed. This is why the Magistrate panicked because then he/she is forced by burden of proof, allowing the defendant to bring up the facts such as

1. You are a real flesh and blood Man - You are not the fictitious person on their ship

2. There has to be an injured party who stands

3. There has to be a witness to back up the claim

etc etc

Arthur Cristian
Love For Life

--------------------------

18th June 2008

Update on rough notes provided by Mark within [ ]

To break their (The Rules - Statutes) presumption is determining the courts jurisdiction over i.e. the fiction (The Strawman) and their alleged jurisdiction over the living flesh and blood Man.

[dis in an aea dat needs coection badly. The common Law patriots talk about flesh an blood men and de gestapo/establisment love it coz we puttin our big foot in our mouth coz we ain't fl an blood but spirits wiffin a temple. On de Gold Coast 2 yrs ago during a protracted court hearing de defendant died and de Judge ultimately uled dat just coz de man died did not change the status of his persona hahahahaha a legal slip up? Doubt that, de law NEVER slips up. They tellen us 'you bimbos,de body was always dead, its a corps wemeber, wiffout de spirit its sticken wotten meat' we gotta wake up. We is spirits, de body is dead fred]

-------

What Brian achieved was this......

If you were driving in a 60ks per hour zone doing 70'ks per hour, the Magistrate can only see the charge (the $ - the fines - the fees in line with the statute which is the rule within a society that allegedly has the force of law),........

but the magistrate is unable to look at the facts...

[facts only come out when the hearing proceeds after de plea is entered but if no plea then there are no facts ta rule on. 'de facts are on de moon' is de court catch cry. so what are they tellin us. DON'T you bring facts into dis court pumpkin head. facts were for de defunct common law jurisdiction, we in admiralty, piracy of de high seas today yeah, coz de system recognises we were under water once, Noah's flood remeber ahahahahaha So if ya plead guitly to de facts and there ain't any established yet yaaaaaahooooooo ya nip em in de bud man.

When ya say de famous words 'I plead guilty to de facts' wot you are in fact saying is 'I am not here to argue with any alleagtions, they ae true, and I wanna maintain the honour of all parties wiff a real interest in this matter and ensure all parties are commercially whole, so Your Honour, I'm here ta settle and close this matter in honour and please issue me all the bonds in this matter so i can accept them for value and surrender them for value to the maker of de instruments who naturlly bear pimary liablity for em unless a course a thirs party dishonours those bills of exchange, but since we aint dishonouring but accepting em for value so they can be tendered thereby using our prepaid account to offset the liablty, the judgy wudgy will settle an clsoe de matter for us, and we have passed the test of being a creditor' Now if he asks ya what it means and ya testify/answer, then ya will have just unravelled ya good work and failed de test. De key of being a creditoris to RESPOND, NOT answer. Did he NOT speak wiff POWER, not as the scribes hee hee hee love it

Will be back down to do another wkshop in Melb in august]

-------------

i.e, did anyone get hurt or get injured [the STATE is alleging that you harmed or injured the STATE] and if so could he or she please stand before the court and make a claim that they were hurt by you driving 70ks per hour in a 60ks per hour speed limit zone.

Obviously no real flesh & blood Man can STAND.

'Its a Fictitious entity' we are talking about here (prosecutor, magistrate STATE, statutes etc are all fiction)

And this why the the magistrate and the prosecutor were panicked because Brian was saying yes I am guilty to the facts so please lets look at the facts..........

[Hahah yeah there were none hahhahaha]

-----------

whooooooo Under Admiralty Law everything is looked upon as commerce and the rules (statutes) sees everything in $ and Maritime contract, as the presumption is that Brian is in their ship not in facts (evidence) which requires a jury.

Breaking the presumption is saying that you are not on/in or part of their their ship at sea.

[arms lenghth better at de helm steering as creditor]

----------

If you defend a claim against you,

[(v dangerous in admiralty coz to argue is a grave dishonour that is unecoverable unless one apologises and repeants)]

----------

the state sends in its prosecutor (prostitute) who has no claim because he cant STAND and so they (including magistrate) can't see the facts. What Brian did, is agree guilty to the facts and not the charges, causing the magistrate & the prosecutor to panic,.......

remember THEY CAN ONLY BRING FORWARD A CHARGE.

[yep but they turn it into facts when the protitutor reads it into de court record, the claims/charges as fictional facts]

------------

Breaking The Presumption

In Admiralty Law he/she is breaking the presumption... i.e.

When you bring your case forward for their non-disclosure of material facts, i.e...... the charges against you, when you, the living flesh and blood Man were not even on the ship.

So therefore you say 'I Plead Guilty To The Facts' which causes the magistrate/prosecutor etc to disclose the facts or to have the facts disclosed.

This is why the Magistrate panicked because then he/she is forced by burden of proof, allowing the defendant to bring up the facts such as

1. You are a real flesh and blood Man - You are not the fictitious person on their ship

2. There has to be an injured party who stands

3. There has to be a witness to back up the claim

[all true though I have cross examined witnesses in the past and they purgered them selves but because I went that route an eliminated the witneses, it was regarded as a dishonour under admiralty to argue with the claims/charges and also I was educating the monkeys/police/lawyers so I got spanked - fined

me learned real quick NOT to argue but conditionally accpet anyfink they said as long as the claimant could prove his claim via affidavit which a cause they refuse to sign which is ok coz they don't gotta sign it but I read it into the court record that by their refusal they admit guilt to making false staements/lies with intent to in jure the party in Q and that they better have a big fat cheque book ready or lots of i nsuance OR withdraw their claim!(is dat not showing our buda mercy for which de judgy wudgy has given me lotsa browny points and even at tmes come to my rescue coz they love me wiff de entertainment me provides em hahahhahahaha )]

-----------

etc etc
Arthur Cristian
Love For Life

[hope dis helps is fun in courts we really have de power when corectly apllied hahhahahahaha]

See Also: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/4892

See Information On A Mark Pytellek Workshop 8th July 2008 In Bowral NSW Australia here: http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/4898

------------

18th June 2008

Mark Pytellek Replied

hi Arthur, these guys went to my workship a week earlier and were prepared to have a go. Despite being babes they did fabulous and almost hit a home run ahahahhaa amazing when people stick to their guns.

The only consession was the $62 they ended up paying but they could have waved that too. They did well under the circumstances as beginners. Proud awf em. The only reason the prosecutor tried so hard to get ANY admission of guilt was they were shiting themselves that if they couldn't pin anything on Brian, then the prosecutor woulda hat ta pick up the tab and their pants turned brown.
hahahahahahaha love it.

--------------

18th June 2008

Arthur Cristian replied to Mark Pytellek

Great Mark, thank you so much for the feedback/unheaducation,... greatly appreciated.

What you stated here......[ They tellen us 'you bimbos,de body was always dead, its a corps wemeber, wiffout de spirit its sticken wotten meat' we gotta wake up. We is spirits, de body is dead fred........] is confirming all the work Fiona and I have been doing for the past two years.

What you/they say is spirit we call consciousness and the temple is the creation (CREATIONS) of CONSCIOUS MAN.

Conscious-living MAN is the creator of everything (EVERYTHING OF CREATION),.........

its just that conscious-living MAN, without full disclosure during very early formative years and of he/shes own doing (creations), dumbed himself/herself down in-----to a state as unconscious hu-mans ----- (STATE of unconsciousness as in State of New South Wales etc).

Its just like we were encouraged-guided-seduced-tricked-coerced-deceived etc in-----to turning down (falling) the dimmer switch of our consciousness (located at intense brightness during very early child-hood), down (falling) and down (falling) and down (falling) and down (compliments of our headucation with the fiction) through the many grey scales of unconsciousness (fiction), and eventually for some (most are lost/stuck in the grey scales of unconsciousness-fiction) end up in the black with the dimmer switch of (creation) con-tinuing to be turned down (falling from consciousness) and down (falling) and down (falling) and down (falling from consciousness) through the bottomless pit of hell (unconsciousness).

MAN is the CREATOR, not separate (divide and rule) to/from the creator. We were all headucated (brainwashed) into believing/worshiping fiction during our very early formative years..... its just that stupid dumbed-down UNCONSCIOUS hu-mans don't know (don't remember/aren't consciously aware of) what they are creating for themselves HERE AND NOW.

Look at it this way...... just scan through this interesting and most challenging communication with a "The Christ" who is "The Mirror of Truth"..... you will know the intent of these words used.... particularly take note of the dairy farmers at the milking station...... here: http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/4862 - He has replied to our last post and we are replying one more time and extricating ourselves at the same time from "The Christ"/"The Mirror Of Truth" shortly. Both his last reply and our last reply will be posted together when we finally complete our last reply ....... if you remember, check this link sometime early next week.

Also check this posting by Don from Idaho Observer.... he has been in the loop of our email postings for a very long time now and has GOT-IT and nailed it.. see: http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/4807 - We have communicated a few times over the past year. These links I am sharing with you and others, the postings receive many thousands of strikes. Website traffic is now reaching closely to 10,000 unique strikes per week. Not bad for a supposed controversial non-mainstream website with a supposed controversial lunatic/s at the helm.

All the best
Arthur Cristian

------------------

18th June 2008

Mark Pytellek replied to Arthur Cristian

Yup, you've got it Arthur. Good work. Just gotta get the message out to more people. End tims are here and the implosion is THIS yr so we gotta have the oil in our lamps ready. Am storing dry food too now

Hope u can attend a workshop down there in Melb sometime or maybe organise one for yr town so we can get a community of people to comprehend this proces so they can support each other with the paperwork - administrative process and then support one another as notaries in courts and attain their remedies we are so excited up here because the communities are forming now where ever I go and the tide is changing we the people ahve the power.

Keep well down there
best regards and blessings
mark

COMMENTS AS OF 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 11.15PM EST SYDNEY - Cut and pasted from the above link

A Lesson In Admiralty Law

Not knowing who Michael or Brian might be, and aware that I am not informed of all details, and not wanting to disillusion you, but you ought to consider the following:

From the report below the issues involve something to do with a dog or other and a failure to register same. This I would ultimately have, I imagine, involved an infringe/penalty notice and not a summons to appear in court. The infringement/penalty notice would provide a clause allowing you to contest the claim in court. It appears that this Brian decided to consent to a court appearance to test his newly acquired skills (?) on how to deal with the issue. If that is the correct scenario, then with respect I think that Brian showed rather than his talent, his ignorance in law and did himself no favour.

You see, an infringement notice is a commercial bill of exchange like an invoice. Now rather than claiming that the infringement has no standing and does could not create a debt in truth and reality, this Brian thought himself clever by accepting the facts as presented. He thinks that he has won something, but sorry it appears that you have lost. Even any future right to contest the claim.

You see, the proceeding, if my presumption above is correct, has nothing to do 'guilty or not' it is in a hearing instigated by Brian and not by any prosecutor. It is an appeal against the issuing of the infringement/penalty notice. That the case went against Brian is highlighted by the cost order, which would not have been granted or even been applied for, if the case was decided in Brian's favour. All that he would appear to have gained or achieved is only a fiction of his imagination. The infringement now has been enforced by the court and a warrant will be created in the Sheriff's office to the value of the amount of the infringement\penalty notice plus the $62.00 court and whatever other costs.

So nothing has been achieved, and what is worse he can no longer defend his position since he has accepted the facts and thus created his own issue estoppel.

The overcome the infringement would have been a rather simple task which does not require any court process, but that his now no longer an option for Brian. It is only for reasons like those illustrated below, that I bother to respond to mail. It is like lambs going to the slaughter guided by those who do not understand law. The lambs even believe that they are gaining something by going. I hope that I am mistaken, but fear that my interpretation is more likely to be correct.

regards

Wolter

---------------------------------------

A Lesson In Admiralty Law

Makes sense. I never want to go to their corp-court.
Ant

---------------------------------------

A Lesson In Admiralty Law

Thx Ant.

There are a number of issues there but fist of all yep its not so simple to make comments until all the information is at hand.

Brian would be the one to ask whether he elected to attend a hearing, and then yes to have attended is to argue by virtue of contesting it.

My question is 'how can anyone lose now' now that we have a better comprehension of commece and WHO is in commerce and WHO is not!

The penalty is only ever commercial and therefore when issued by court or the state penalties, can easlity be offset as our friend below attests to. Its a bill of exchnage so even if a commecial penalty is given, how does one lose when one can just slap on an A4V stamp. have done it numerous times.

You lose when u give fiat (that hurts) or go to gaol!

Even if Brian was summoned to court, he still cannot lose.

Its a no lose scenario if ya know who you are and who you are not.

The creditor never loses.

Yes it is also best dealt with outside court but as we all know, some organisations will not settle privately no matter wot one does, so we win in court.

I hope people compehend that as creditor, you CANNOT lose.

As for a penalty of $400 + costs being issued well I haven't seen any POC as yet so time will tell.

Een if it was issued, then sooooooooooooooooooooooo what, didn't Brian have some fun in court and now he can accept the penalty for value and ping!

How bad is that?

When will people stop arguing and ditch de fear?

Best regards
Mark

--------------------------------------