A method for exposing the fraud putting the criminals under the fire of their own B.S.

in #informationwar6 years ago (edited)

Disclaimer: 

I am not responsible for what you think or do as a result of reading this post. You Are. The supplying of a way to retain your own copy of the sources in no way transfers or implies liability. You are solely responsible for attaining your own sources and doing your own research to determine the facts. This post is for discussion and entertainment purposes only! The readying of any part of this post is agreement that you indemnify the author. 

Lots of people comprehend how to write essays and articles exposing fraud, but have problems in cumming up with the evidence.

There is a little known piece of knowledge about Agencies and other world Governments that is not actually used to the effect that it actually has. That is the fact that agencies and governments exist based on a rule. That rule is called silence is consent. One can find it in the acts of sedition and treason. One can also see it in the sources like law Dictionary's, which you don't have to consent too, but through their oaths they do. Let us look at part of the definition of consent from source Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition  

Source is 

nationallibertyalliance.org

CONSENT

. An agreement to something proposed, and differs from assent. (q. v.) Wolff, Ins. Nat
. part 1,SSSS 27-30; Pard. Dr. Com. part 2, tit. 1, n. 1, 38 to 178. Consent supposes, 1. a physical power to act; 2. amoral power of acting; 3. a serious, determined, and free use of these powers. Fonb.  Eq. B; 1, c. 2, s. 1; Grot. de Jure Belli et Pacis, lib. 2, c. 11, s. 6.
2. Consent is either express or implied. Express, when it is given viva voce, or in writing; implied, when it is manifested by signs, actions, or facts, or by inaction or silence, which raise a presumption that the consent has been given.


Excerpt : Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition 

Source is nationallibertyalliance.org

Do you see number two exposes the fact that consent is 

"implied, when it is manifested by signs, actions, or facts, or by inaction or silence, which raise a presumption that the consent has been given."

So doesn't this mean that if you ask for proof and the inaction of not supplying the proof or remaining silent raise a presumption that the consent has been given thus the implications of the question become one of the facts that raise a presumption of consent.

So why not just straight out say "I don't see any evidence for your claim and a claim made without evidence needs no evidence to refute it. Thus if you don't supply proof are you not consenting to having just made up the excuse." In fact what we see here in this definition is that signs, action, facts, inaction and silence raise the presumption. One can see that the only reason one would remain silent on any matter of State is because of guilty knowledge.

For informationwar warriors this is a tool to expose the criminal behavior of our servants. One of course need to look up the Acts and the legal code to determine exactly what the process is in court, but as a matter of logic and reason they meaning the so called AGENT must answer the challenge or the presumption stands. I don't remember how long one is suppose to give the AGENT to respond, but I do know some kind of record that you asked the question and the AGENT had a chance to recognize it and respond must be kept. When dealing with these criminals every claim must be proved.

Other post of interest:

Slave  Master Shell game definition in Law dictionary's I, do not  Understand!/Exposing I.D fraud part 2. Principal Agent Relationships /  Is the State the principal?

Exposing I.D fraud part 1. Principal Agent Relationships / Is the State the principal?

Knowledge is POWER / Divided we fall and together we Stand. Stand Up I say!

Knowledge is Power So lets protect ourselves with Power!


I am not responsible for if you think, how you think, what you think or do. You are. If you like my post consider following and up voting. Peace!

Interested in joining or supporting the Information War? 

Use tag  #informationwar to post your own stories about the lies and propaganda being pushed on the public.

@informationwar will up vote posts worthy of the cause.  

Join the discord: https://discord.gg/JsXbzFM chat with like minded individuals like myself and share your articles to receive additional support.  

Delegating Steem Power:   Another way you can support the cause is to delegate SP to @informationwar

Delegate 25 SP  

Delegate 50 SP  

Delegate 100 SP Note: remember to keep around 50SP in your account so you don't run into any bandwidth problems.  

How to delegate SP, join the fan base and more:   https://steemit.com/informationwar/@truthforce/you-can-make-a-difference-join-the-informationwar-and-help-support-others-today  

Find out more about the Information War. Click Banner!

Sort:  

Tried that in court - The magistrate made it quite clear that consent is not required and neither is jurisdiction - He said "an internet defence will not be accepted..... Unless you have evidence to the contrary to prove your innocence you are guilty" - this evidence must be filed as a counter claim before you go to court or it will not be accepted - even then, if you can prove that they have broken the law, they may (probably will) refuse to accept your evidence.

The last time i was in court they just said they had no evidence of my written defence... Which seemed strange because my defence was in the same envelope as all the other court paperwork which was used as evidence by the claimant / prosecution. That alone shows that the court colluded with the claimant / prosecution before the trial - But then as the prosecution is the claimant, it's obviously in their best interest to lose my defence.

Also they can make up new claims in court - for which you cannot file any counter claim , rebuttal or contrary evidence - the magistrate will also collude with the claimant to move the new claim before the court - for which you are automatically guilty.

i don't think i will ever go back to a Magistrates court knowing that the Magistrate and Court are fraudulent, treasonous and corrupt.

Lots of people say "try this, i heard this should work" but it's never "first hand information" - what they say may still work in the US where they still have a sliver of common law, but not here in Australia.

i think the only way to win is to use a good lawyer and move a counter claim at the High Court, (Queens Bench) if you can find a lawyer that will agree to represent you and if you can afford it.

oh - and just so you don't think i'm some criminal with all these court appearances, they are a result of false claims made by the police - because i made a formal complaint about a police officer who threatened to physically assault my wife at a random breath test. (Reasonable suspicion / probable cause is not required here!)

Keep up the good work - spreading the seeds of truth - the more people that can be educated in common law, the more we can resist these fraudsters....

I so agree with this statement in comments.

'i don't think i will ever go back to a Magistrates court knowing that the Magistrate and Court are fraudulent, treasonous and corrupt."

The history of common law is to run concurrent with the existing B.S. We stopped doing so and the B.S has gotten way out of hand. I think that one solution is to create our own educational system. Thus exposing them for the frauds they are. As more and more people begin to see them as a problem and not our saviors progress will inevitably ensue. That anyway is what I am trying to do here on steemit. May you not have to deal with the bull anymore.Peace.

Yep and you didn't take an oath to either. lol

people are busy with their lives, they don't want extra headache with researching or asking extra question, people just want to be supplied by simple answers for everything

True. When was the simple answer a service to the desire?

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.16
TRX 0.12
JST 0.028
BTC 54953.89
ETH 2913.89
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.03