knowledgecartel.com» Secret Government Archives – KnowledgeCartel.com

Argentina’s Economic Collapse (110 min)

KCartel — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 09:02:30 +0000

The Argentine economic crisis reflects very closely what is happening here in the United States of America which means we can use it’s lessons to predict what may happen here in the USA.

It was a financial situation that affected Argentina’s economy during the late 1990s and early 2000s. Macroeconomically speaking, the critical period started with the decrease of real GDP in 1999 and ended in 2002 with the return to GDP growth, but the origins of the collapse of Argentina’s economy, and their effects on the population, can be found in action before.

Argentina quickly lost the confidence of investors and the flight of money away from the country increased. In 2001, people fearing the worst began withdrawing large sums of money from their bank accounts, turning pesos into dollars and sending them abroad, causing a run on the banks. The government then enacted a set of measures (informally known as the corralito) that effectively froze all bank accounts for twelve months, allowing for only minor sums of cash to be withdrawn.

Because of this allowance limit and the serious problems it caused in certain cases, many Argentines became enraged and took to the streets of important cities, especially Buenos Aires. They engaged in a form of popular protest that became known as cacerolazo (banging pots and pans). These protests occurred especially in 2001 and 2002. At first the cacerolazos were simply noisy demonstrations, but soon they included property destruction, often directed at banks, foreign privatized companies, and especially big American and European companies. Many businesses installed metal barriers because windows and glass facades were being broken, and even fires being ignited at their doors. Billboards of such companies as Coca Cola and others were brought down by the masses of demonstrators.

Confrontations between the police and citizens became a common sight, and fires were also set on Buenos Aires avenues. Fernando de la Rúa declared a state of emergency but this only worsened the situation, precipitating the violent protests of 20 and 21 December 2001 in Plaza de Mayo, where demonstrators clashed with the police, ended with several dead, and precipitated the fall of the government. De la Rúa eventually fled the Casa Rosada in a helicopter on 21 December.

Amid rioting, President Fernando de la Rua resigns, December 21, 2001.

Since De la Rúa’s vice president, Carlos Álvarez, had resigned in October 2000, a political crisis ensued. Following presidential succession procedures established in the Constitution, the president of the Senate Ramón Puerta took office and the Legislative Assembly (a body formed by merging both chambers of the Congress) was convened. By law, the candidates were the members of the Senate plus the Governors of the Provinces; they finally appointed Adolfo Rodríguez Saá, then governor of San Luis. During the last week of 2001, the interim government led by Rodríguez Saá, facing the impossibility of meeting debt payments, defaulted on the larger part of the public debt, totalling no less than $132 billion.

Politically, the most heated debate involved the time for the following elections—the spectrum ranged from March 2002 to October 2003 (the original date for the ending of De la Rúa’s office).

Rodríguez Saá’s economy team came up with a project designed to preserve the convertibility regime, dubbed the “Third Currency” Plan. It consisted of creating a new, non-convertible currency called Argentino coexisting with convertible pesos and U.S. dollars. It would only circulate as cash (checks, promissory notes or other instruments could be nominated in pesos or dollars but not in Argentinos) and would be partially guaranteed with federally-managed land—such features were expected to counterbalance inflationary tendencies.

Argentinos having legal currency status would be used to redeem all complementary currency already in circulation—the acceptance of which as a means of payment was quite uneven. It was hoped that preservation of convertibility would restore public confidence, while the non-convertible nature of this currency would allow for a measure of fiscal flexibility (unthinkable with pesos) that could ameliorate the crippling recession of economy. Critics called this plan merely a “controlled devaluation”; its advocates countered that since controlling a devaluation is perhaps its thorniest issue, this criticism was a praise in disguise. The “Third Currency” plan had enthusiastic supporters among mainstream economists (the most notorious being perhaps Martín Redrado, current president of the central bank) citing sound technical arguments. However, it could never be implemented because the Rodríguez Saá government lacked the political support required.

Rodríguez Saá, utterly incapable of dealing with the crisis and unsupported by his own party, resigned before the end of the year. The Legislative Assembly convened again, appointing Peronist Eduardo Duhalde—then a Senator for the Buenos Aires province—to take his place.

Read the rest

TheAntiTerrorist on Corporate Revenue Collection (10 min)

KCartel — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 08:34:06 +0000

Who are the ‘investors’…?

http://www.dnb.co.uk/
http://www.dnb.com/us/

These entities are very elusive and are invariably ‘trading’ under some other name. Try (company ‘trading as’) in your searches.

https://smallbusiness.dnb.com/webapp/…
https://smallbusiness.dnb.com/webapp/…

TheAntiTerrorist on Corporate Revenue Collection

Broadcast on 13 October 2008

Hello friends, I am TheAntiTerrorist. Thank you once again for all your messages of support,

your emails and your questions. I have been learning and implementing and preparing my

family for what is to come. As you can see we’ve been talking about this for a year now and

it’s coming into play; the food crisis, the theatre that is the financial crisis, I hope you have

all been storing dried food and studying feverishly.

This particular broadcast will leave you in no doubt as to who is running the show here. Or

at least who’s benefitting from running the show.

Now if all you good police officers who have been contacting me over the last year are still

in any doubt whether you have been reduced to mere revenue collection agents for private

corporations, this episode will clear that up for you, too.

[begin email excerpt graphics]

I get a lot of emails from disillusioned police officers. They’re beginning to see through the

veil. As you can see here there are certain quotes from emails I have received from certain

officers, and if you are the officers themselves watching this video, you will recognise your

own writings. Of course, I’ve not included your names, but I show these emails to prove to

others that there are good cops out there—there are good police officers out there who are

completely and utterly disillusioned about the job, and how the job has changed. I want to

make it clear I am not anti-police—we need the police because unfortunately there are

people out there who do not have the rest of society’s best interests at heart. There are

burglars out there, there are thieves and rapists and they need to be dealt with. We need men

and women out there selflessly protecting the public.

You may well be out there dealing with us in the real world, dealing with the bad guys,

trying to make a difference, but the bottom line is, you are there to generate revenue for a

full-profit organisation

[end email excerpt graphics]

[Begin Dun & Bradstreet graphics]

So how can I confidently assert that police officers are employees of private corporations

doing business on the international markets? Well, to find that information I would go to

somewhere like Dun & Bradstreet.

Dun & Bradstreet touts itself as

“The worlds leading source of commercial information and insight on businesses, enabling

companies to decide with confidence for 167 years. Dun & Bradstreet’s global commercial

database contains more than 130 million business records, providing our customers with

quality business information. This quality information is the foundation of our global

solutions that customers rely on to make critical business decisions…”

Allo, allo, allo, what’s going on ‘ere then? City of London Police, trading as City of London

Police. What is the overall condition of this business? Well above average.

There will be a report like this for every police force in the western world, and you’ll find it

on Dun & Bradstreet if you look hard enough. In some cases it will cost you an arm and a leg

to get these reports but they’re well worth having. And in some cases there will be

information missing with regards to profits, or directors, but here you can see the directors/

proprietors of City of London Police are Bernard Hartie (sp?) and William Taylor. They’re

executives. Of a company. Making money. Doing business on the international markets.

And if any of you were in any doubt as to The Bank of England’s status, you can see she’s

trading as The Old Lady of Threadneedle Street. When did this business start? 1694.

And here is a favourite of mine—Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—trading on Dun &

Bradstreet as a full-profit organisation. Now you can see there’s lots of information missing

there but they’re definitely registered and commercial piracy is alive and well.

Oh and here’s Experian, another favourite of mine. Both Experian and Equifax, gathering

data and selling it to banks for profit. What authority do these companies have to take that

information from you when they have a county court judgement against them?

What about our local councils, surely they’re government owned, they can’t be private

businesses? Well at least we know the courts couldn’t possibly be private businesses and

making money on the international mar—oh… well, that can’t be good…. Nelson County

Court? Operating as a full-profit business on the international markets?

Oh, and here’s one of the daddies of them all, The Ministry of Justice, trading as Asylum

Immigration Tribunal, Magistrates Courts, the Public Trustee Office—and here’s what’s very

interesting—are there any significant legal proceedings events against this business? A

county court judgement was registered against this business on the 8th of May 2008.

Now I ask you, as a man on the land would you do business with a corporation that has a

black mark against its name like that? It just goes to show you that the story about the judges

and courts being immune is absolute nonsense. Total hooey.

These are private entities and they are just as susceptible to a commercial lien as any other

corporation would be. We’re talking about profit here. There’s money involved, which makes

it a whole new ballgame. Changes the motivation for giving out tickets. Changes the

motivation for making arrests. And it changes the rules entirely, which is why I am revealing

this information to the people who wish to find it.

Whenever there are criminal charges, criminal charges always come by statute. Every time

the legislature passes a criminal ordinance or statute, the purpose of passing it is to raise

revenue for the government. Now the revenue that they’re raising is not the fines that the

courts will collect, no. The fines and the courts are sort of like taxes. Taxes don’t run the

government and the government doesn’t run off the fines, either.

Who do the taxes and the fines go to? The investors. So who the hell are the investors?

Whoever it was that bid and paid the government for the right to collect and use all the fines

and taxes, based on the violation of the statute.

Well then how does the government operate? They pass a statute that says you should not

speed, and then, when they pass that statute they’ve got a bunch of number crunchers in the

background saying, “Well if we put the speed limit at 30 in the towns, and say, 60 in the

country and 70 on the motorways, how many miscreants do you think we might have every

year, and how much money or revenue is that going to generate? Well, we think it might

generate about 3 billion a year or 5 billion a year…” or whatever it is.

And so they pass this statute and the government says, “Okay, we’ve got this statute, how

many of you guys would like to give us a quotation, what would you purchase the income

stream of this statute for? How much would you pay us to collect the revenue from these

statutes and hand that money over to you as a return on your investment?”

These banks bid up and and they say, ‘Well, we’ll give you 5 or 6 billion,’ and they pay the

government up front , that’s what runs the government.

So let me make that perfectly clear. What is collected from the court fines is the revenue

which pays back the interest on the principle to the private banking investors who

bankrolled the government up front.

And which entity is creating the statutes? Oh, look, The House of Commons trading as The

Members of Parliament on Dun & Bradstreet. Starting to see the big picture now, are we?

So as soon as you violate a statute and a traffic ticket goes out, the traffic ticket is the

equivalent of a criminal complaint, which is a negotiable instrument, or a money order.

When a ticket is written and ends up with a clerk of the court, the clerk bundles these up and

they get shipped around, appraised, money is put into the accounts of the local courts—

wherever it may be—and securities go out in the background and somebody has purchased

the right to the revenue stream.

“Yeah, that’s all very well,” I hear you say, “but what does it actually mean?”

Well, it means they’re all private corporate entities. All of them. The courts, the police, the

Houses of Parliament, the councils, all of it, all corporations. And corporations have

shareholders who expect a dividend. They are the motivation for the creation of statutes that

generate fines as revenue. It also means that where statutory legislation is concerned, if

you’re standing in front of a judge or a police officer, you’re dealing with an employee of a

private corporation. You wouldn’t let a McDonald’s employee search you bag, would you?

[Pinhead]

“You are nicked, my son, you are going down. Now, would you like fries with that?”

[Fathead]

“You are under arrest, buddy.”

There’s no difference whatsoever. The only authority they have is what you grant them,

voluntarily or out of pure ignorance. It’s your call.

Yes, you could say they are just doing business, but it is personal.

[disclaimer: Not to be taken as legal advice &c.]

Everything I’ve told you is provable and you can look it up for yourself. I certainly would.

Don’t take my word for it; after all, I’m a guy sitting here in my study wearing a black

balaclava and sunglasses after sundown.

Thanks for listening.

HEO

9 February 2009

Thanks for listening.
—————————————————————————————————-

HEO9 February 2009© MMIX TheAntiTerrorist & Velluminous Press

A heads-up:
The AntiTerrorist Hand book is available worldwide on all Amazon sites

UK: http://tinyurl.com/mwgmjo
US: http://tinyurl.com/mpauum
At least there’s no problem with the audio levels.

Visit the AT store on CafePress.No profits are taken from the sale of cafepress products
http://www.cafepress.com/THEANTIT

The AT Handbook:
UK: http://tinyurl.com/mwgmjo
US: http://tinyurl.com/mpauum
CA: http://tinyurl.com/y9c5qdk

TheAntiTerrorist on Romancing the DATA (31min)

KCartel — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 01:01:23 +0000

Are they mining your own business?

Because it is important to make Goog, Twit, YT, MS and FB work FOR you, not against you, empower yourself by cultivating your privacy.

Information Awareness Office
http://tinyurl.com/yglpdov

Carnivore (software)
Federal Bureau of Investigation Ethernet tapping system
http://tinyurl.com/ykl7rup

Echelon Corporation
automatic phone tap and conversation recording
http://tinyurl.com/ylewgye

Analysis, Dissemination, Visualization, Insight, and Semantic Enhancement (ADVISE)
http://tinyurl.com/qfga3h
United States Department of Homeland Security Threat and Vulnerability Testing and Assessment possess the ability to store one quadrillion data entities[

The program was officially scrapped in September 2007 after the agency’s internal Inspector General found that pilot testing of the system had been performed using data on real people without required privacy safeguards in place. Right.

In-Q-Tel
http://tinyurl.com/yjg3hoj

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
http://tinyurl.com/yb26uls

“Hey Google, just what part of ‘Don’t be evil’ are you failing to grasp?”
http://tinyurl.com/6bug6t

Data Mining
http://tinyurl.com/yf4qdx8

Profiling Practices
http://tinyurl.com/yzxkos8

coming right out in the open… now get your own Google Profile
http://tinyurl.com/5eb5lm

In 2006, Google bought YouTube for US$1.65 billion in stock.

Opening score sampled from ‘New World Order’ by DJ Chris Geo
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/truth-fr…

The AT Handbook on Amazon
UK: http://tinyurl.com/mwgmjo
US: http://tinyurl.com/mpauum
CA: http://tinyurl.com/y9c5qdk

http://www.theantiterrorist.co.uk
theantiterrorist@hotmail.com

TheAntiTerrorist on Playing to Win

KCartel — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 08:49:03 +0000

Playing to Win

Timothy AntiTerrorist

Broadcast 5 November 2009

Guy Fawkes Day

Gorau adnabod, d’adnabod dy hun.

Once upon a time, there was everywhere and nowhere, everything and nothing, just pure

consciousness experiencing being conscious. A!er an indeterminable amount of ‘time’, simply

experiencing being conscious became a li”le monotonous, so consciousness decided it would be nice to have a conversation about being conscious.

Consciousness divided itself in two, and although both parts were aware they were one, discussed

the experience of being conscious. #e conversation was captivating for a while but—inevitably—it

became cyclic and dull.

“Let’s play a game,” said one half, “Let’s pretend that being over there is more important than being

over here.” So they did.

#ey spent ‘time’ moving back and forth, despite already being everywhere and nowhere at once.

#e mental exercise, suspending disbelief and discussing whether or not they were where they were,

was thrilling, for a ‘time’ but – as before – it became repetitive and predictable.

“I know,” said the other, “Let’s pretend that if I get over there before you, I win.” So they did.

#ey raced back and forth and took turns at winning, and they congratulated each other and the

game was absorbing and interesting. ‘Time’ flew by.

#ey divided and split and multiplied over and over, mitosis and cytokinesis, increasing the odds

and making the race more and more exciting but, eventually, even that became a li”le dull.

“Let’s make it so that if I win, I really win and if you lose it means I am be”er than you are.”

#e others smiled and said in unison, “#at’s just silly, I AM you.” #ey laughed for an eternity,

then, “Okay, let’s pretend that if you lose, you forget that you are me.”

And so the game took a fascinating turn and we have been playing it ever since. When you $nally

remember who you are—when you know that we are all one—this game ends and we can begin a

new adventure.

I am convinced at a fundamental level of the power of the individual. I believe that we create our own

reality and that we are personally responsible for the lives and experiences that we have. Everything

that you have in your life right now is something you created, and everything that is going on in the

world right now we created collectively. We are all one, yet we all have individual desires. Everything I

do, everything you say, everything we think affects the entire universe. What happens to the one

happens to the all and what happens to all happens to the one. Most people do not like to

acknowledge this truth because it would mean embracing the concept that we created the abuse or

the lack or the suffering in our lives or in the world as a whole. We are all connected, yet solely

responsible for our personal actions.

Never confuse responsibility with culpability—they are two entirely separate things. No one is

culpable. Everyone should be responsible. “at the two are so o#en used interchangeably is evidence

of old programming that you can consciously choose to change.

When people are told, ‘You should take responsibility… ’ they most o#en hear, ‘Accept punishment

for ‘$ll-in-the-blank.’ As a result, most people spend so much of their time and energy running from

the former (culpability) that they rarely stop and embrace the la%er (responsibility). Most people live

much of their lives feeling like either a victim of something, or a perpetrator of something else. It can

be… tiring.

“e conspiracy theories fuelling this game remind me of a set of Russian dolls, the pertinent question

being who’s really at the heart of things? “e Queen twists open to reveal George Bush Sr and George

Bush Sr twists open to unleash David Rockefeller, followed by a Rothschild, then a slowly

descending, nested puzzle of “e Black Pope (on a rope), Elvis, “e Ma$a, the Annunaki and so on.

Perhaps the centre doll is Homer Simpson. And inside that is a donut. I get the distinct feeling that if

the dolls were all made of foam rubber and were all exactly the same size, you could rearrange the

plot sequence anyway you liked, based on whatever you’d read on the Internet the night before.

Regarding the amorphous word, “ey—it’s used all the time, and the meaning is always different for

every person employing the term. “roughout human history there’s always been a “ey, whether

“ey referred to the ancient Egyptian pharaohs, the Roman ruling class, “e Imperial British, the

“ird Reich, the Czars, the Communists, the Church – whoever “ey are changes continually, yet the

concept of “ey has been a constant theme of the human experience. “e truth is, “ey is simply

Other – the other part of “e All – and the game of Other goes on.

What interests me more than Who “ey Are is the question, What Do “ey Really Want? My

answer: “ey want your industry. “at’s all. And “ey are willing to dangle the promise of eternal life

if you work in this one for nothing. Or “ey may promise corporate bonuses, or your name on a

public building, or an award, or sainthood or a statue. “ey may even promise you your ‘freedom’ if

you do what they say. You may think you must give them your obedience, your adherence, your

loyalty, the very birthright of your soul, though all “ey really require is your industry.

Any ruling class sees the seething biomass of humanity as existing to serve and service their needs,

and have developed manipulation into an art form in order to accomplish this goal. If the enticements

of jingoism, religion, television—any and all aspects of bread and circuses—don’t work, if a sovereign

soul ever a%empts to try and opt out, “ey do their utmost to corner you like a straying sheep and

use every threat they can muster, including hunting you down and gunning you down in the name of

their current status quo.

“ey want your industry. “ey want you to serve and service them, and they’ll stop at nothing to

achieve this.

“ere is a secret the Elite would rather the seething biomass not catch on to: “ey run the world like

a corporation—to them, it’s really Just Business.

“e tendency is to view the Elite as a shadowy, sinister bogeyman—don’t fall for it—think shadowy,

sinister businessman instead.

“ey run everything like a corporation. Nations are corporations, religions are run like corporations,

clubs, organisations, secret societies—the ones in charge are simply looking to maintain and

hopefully increase their slice of the pie. Pump pro$ts. Feather the CEO’s nest. “at’s all. Just business.

It’s the rest of us who take it so personally, and—believe me—they count on that. “ey love to keep

us angry, agitated, and continually arguing with one another.

So, what happens when a work force gets larger than the job requires? Cutbacks. Layoffs. Where the

Elite agenda is concerned, reducing the work force could translate into poisoning the food and water

supply, or pushing tainted vaccines, or the timeless classic: keeping different cultures schismed,

agitated and continually killing each other off.

Factor in the current trend of constantly reminding the population that we are all a cancer on the

earth, or we are responsible for the changing climate, or we are guilty for the mess we are all in today,

and the amount of money involved in the carbon credit scheme begins to make a strange sort of

sense.

We are not dealing with Dr. Evil or Snidely Whiplash, we are simply faced with businessmen. “e

good news is, “ey have an Achilles’ Heel…

Let’s say they do indeed manage to ful$ll their manifest destiny. “ey bring world population down,

they clear the continental United States and return it to a pristine state to serve as a pleasure park

nature reserve, they get their work force down to a ‘manageable, cost-effective size’—in other words,

just enough people to serve and service their needs—say they manage all this—what then?

In the end, people who live simply to dominate and enslave others always eat their own. “ey turn on

each other. Dominating others is an addiction they will never be able to lose. In their quest for

superiority, when they run out of biomass to torment, they will turn on one another. Small

consolation if you and most of the rest of the population has long since fallen as a casualty to their

agenda, but in approaching this life on earth as a game, you can turn this weapon in their hand by

gaining and maintaining clarity about why and how they play, and what they hope to gain.

Know thyself. Know thy adversary. Adopt and adapt their strategies— not to dominate them in turn,

but to keep yourself free. Do everything possible to postpone any sweeping countermoves your

adversary may a%empt and keep on buying time—perhaps enough time for them to start killing each

other off. And, why not? “ey’ve been using that particular tactic on us for millennia. Perhaps it’s

time to start learning from your opponent.

In approaching life as a game, it follows that we all have a part to play. One of my parts in this story is

to be the messenger, a Potentiator of the Mind, if you like. However, I’m bringing a li%le more than

the game obliges me to bring. I am also here to remind you that it is a game.

In de$ning our game experience by deferring to rules that others have set, and by following those

rules to the le%er because it seems safer to do so, we risk being bound and hampered by those very

rules. “e key is &exibility, and trusting your own ability to &y by the seat of your pants. “is is a skill

that can only be mastered when you realise that you, the player, have the ability to level the playing

$eld just by holding and exercising your own power instead of automatically deferring to that of

others.

Games are only fun when you commit. For instance, you can’t play a murder mystery game without

commi%ing yourself and suspending disbelief; otherwise the game is not fun and becomes a case of

going-through-the-motions. Your job, in this life, is to play full-out, to play for keeps and commit to

the game—to immerse yourself completely, whilst never forge%ing that it is a game.

You can tell a lot about the way someone lives their life by watching how they play. “eir

commitment and their relationship to their own ability and self-con$dence is re&ected in the way

they throw the dice, hold their cards, move the avatar around the board and, most of all, their

behaviour when they win or lose. A fundamental part of enjoying any game is knowing what the rules

are and what they are not. I strive to accurately assess my opponent’s agenda, and will bend, turn,

mould or adapt it to work for me, whilst never compromising the integrity of the game.

You also have far more power if you think of the game as poker, rather than any dice-based game in

which ‘chance’ comes into play. “ere is no chance involved here—we create it all. In poker— as in

life—you’re dealt a speci$c hand and it’s what you do with it that determines whether you win or

lose. You can bluff, you can a%empt to deduce another’s hand by card counting, you can manipulate

the other players by giving false ‘tells’; it’s a game of skill, intuition and experience.

I am acutely aware that I’m walking a thin line here; you may think I’m making light of the alarming

events going on in our world right now, but in terms of the big picture, they are frivolous because it is

just a game. But we’re pretending this game is real so we must play full-out—it has to be taken

seriously. We have to do all the things we’re doing; protesting about 9/11, the war in Iraq, the raping

and pillaging of other nations’ natural resources and so on. It is serious but your other job is to take

the most empowering perspective on any event. As long as you remember we’re playing a game, you

are empowered to affect the game as an equal. “e moment you forget, you become victim to the

other player’s tactics.

We have to ask ourselves why we are being bombarded by messages that induce fear. Fear in terms of

frequency is a very slow vibration and as such, allows for easier manipulation. While you’re in a state

of fear you are more pliable, malleable and suggestible. On the other side of the coin, we have anger;

another very low frequency state. Keep in mind that although anger is a fear killer, it still operates in

the same low frequency. “is is why “ey seem to be able to create more effectively than you can,

because we’re all hopping back and forth between fear and anger; scaring each other with talk about

what “ey are doing and then ge%ing angry about it, never raising vibration long enough to create

anything we really desire or anything that can turn the game to our advantage.

While you’re listening to the shock jocks, who are also playing their part in the game—try tuning in

to how you are feeling; if you’re fearful or angry or both, they’ve got you right where “ey want you.

Without naming names, there are certain truth jocks out there that make me want to go out and do

some serious harm, so I avoid them. I’ll listen just long enough to get a sense of what’s going on

behind the curtain and I’ll let them play their part—their part being to inform me of what the other

players in the game are doing—but as soon as their emotional energy begins to affect mine and bring

down my vibration, I leave.

“e shock jock’s duty in this game is to disillusion you. To Dis – Illusion, to show you that you are

living under an illusion and to wake you from it; to remove your rose-coloured spectacles. To do that,

he needs to scare you out of your apathy, using fear and anger as a motivator.

It serves its purpose well and those particular players have commi%ed to vibrating at that low

frequency for your bene$t. But once you wake up, your job is to raise your vibration and start

creating. If you choose to remain in the low frequency by staying with the shock jocks in the realm of

fear and anger for longer than is necessary, you will not be having as much fun as you could have

playing the game. Listen to them, get the headlines, then get out and raise your frequency again.

Here’s another secret for you: the ‘elite’ love to be hated, and we love to hate them. Hate is fuelled by

both fear and anger, and the only ones who bene$t from your hate, and therefore your selfimprisonment

in the lower frequency, is your opponent. “e ones playing the part of the Elite in this

game may have forgo%en it’s a game themselves, but—like the best method actors—they are playing

full-out and are commi%ed to their performances for the sake of keeping the game interesting and

exciting.

“ey may be trying to kill us, but try this concept on for size: you can’t really die, you are eternal.

“ink of it as a game of paintball: you may get spla%ed, but it just means you have to sit the rest of this

game out and wait for the next one.

If you can’t wrap your mind around the concept that you are an eternal being, then answer me this: If

this is the only life you have—if this is all there is—do you want to spend it being angry, fearful and

miserable all the time? “en why not try using your imagination—remember what that is? “e thing

your parents, your teachers, your partners continually try to stop or sti&e or change when they accuse

you of daydreaming, or wasting your life in fantasies, or simply hoping for something be%er. It’s your

imagination—reclaim it. Imagine how powerful you are o#en enough, steadily enough, with clarity

of purpose and singleness of intent and watch your life change.

“e road to empowerment does not mean controlling others, but rather choosing the thoughts that

best affect how your own life unfolds. It’s that simple. “e road to empowerment is the most

individual journey of a human life. You set the timetable for development, you choose the way you

approach the challenges, you maintain your connection to the greater part of yourself, you do all this.

Be constant, be vigilant, be commi%ed to the course you set for yourself. If you need to gain clarity,

then factor out everyone else’s static, factor out the peanut gallery and concentrate on what you

desire to make of your life.

Humans have a hunger to create more and be%er and different experiences all the time—it’s the

entire point of being alive. “e difficulty comes because people are terri$ed to do it alone.

“e biggest fear most people ever have might be the realisation that they are alone. We all die alone.

We all suffer pain alone; no one can do either for us. Neither can anyone know exactly what you see

with your eyes or hear with your ears or dream when you sleep, no ma%er how we strive to

communicate those things through poetry, painting, music or blogs. No one knows exactly what you

feel, and how you feel it, but you. You’re alone because you are a part of the whole, having a subjective

experience called life that is completely unique to you.”

To forestall embracing this state of aloneness, we join a church, or a political party, or an online

forum, continually checking in on other people’s opinions of us and measuring our power according

to who wins the online &ame war. We form wars against drugs or porn or Republicans or the Tory

Party. We protest, we petition, we march… we do ten thousand things with ten thousand others, but

rarely pause to give a moment’s credit to the power of the individual. Why is that? Why do we feel so

powerless alone? Why do we let this fear hold us down when history has repeatedly shown us that it

is the individual, the lone voice in the wilderness, who lets a pebble fall from his hand and starts the

avalanche of change.

You are alone. You’re alone because you are an individual having an experience called life that is

completely unique to you. You’re alone because despite the begging, pleading, lying, seducing,

dominating or manipulating you may do, you can never really change another sovereign soul. You are

alone because in this reality the only life you can ever have a lasting effect on is your own. And you

know what? “at is powerful enough. By far.

You know, I now feel like I’m &oating downstream, which is a hell of a lot easier than impersonating a

salmon, which is what I feel I have been doing up to this point. Some burden has been li#ed from my

shoulders and I know I have shi#ed my focus from a reality that manifests limitations to one that

manifests freedoms.

Change your thought about your powerlessness as just one person—it’s only a belief, and a belief is

just a thought we continue to think in a habitual manner. You have the power to change the belief,

and if you think you don’t, then you have already lost the game.

You have a connection to the larger part of yourself that no one else can ever touch or violate or take

away. Feel it. It’s there. Believe in yourself and you will become powerful in your own right. With

every breath we draw, we are either constantly being born or repeatedly resisting change. Which will

you choose?

“e human we are hardest on in all the world—without exception— is ourselves. So give yourself

permission to smile from time to time. Lighten up. Be easy. Float downstream. Try and have some

fun. And if you take anything at all from these words, let it be this:

‘I’m in it for the adventure.’

Any dissemination, distribution, copying or stealing of this article for sale or nefarious purposes or to try and

get that girl into bed by passing it off as your own cool take on the world is not authorised unless explicitly

permi”ed by Timothy AntiTerrorist and/or Velluminous Press, and if you do decide to distribute,

disseminate, copy, steal or use this article in a naughty way, his mum—Mrs Boudicca AntiTerrorist—will

have to kick your ass.

H E O

Download Transcript of Playing_to_Win

TheAntiTerrorist on The Devil’s Eye (25min)

KCartel — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:30:30 +0000

Is it called ‘television programming’ for a reason?

Dr. Marcel Just and Dr. Tom Mitchell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kmrr2…
Neuroscience and Free Will
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6S9Oi…
Thought Reading Demonstration
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVLu5_…
60 minutes – mind reading fMRI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jc8UR…

—————————————- ————

Neuro-marketing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owPZGJ…

ex-IBM reveals how analog was abandoned :

http://tinyurl.com/ycfpawe
____________________________________

http://alligatorfarm.wordpress.com/tv…

http://mindcontrolinamerica.com/mind_…

http://www.somethingmustbreak.net/id2…
_____________________
Dr. Doepp interview: Switching of the Brain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct1jrT…
Orson Wells War of the worlds documentary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol3NRu…

Nervous system manipulation by electromagnetic fields from monitors. US Patent #6506148
http://tinyurl.com/yc96dco

Silent Subliminal Presentation System. United States Patent #5159703
http://tinyurl.com/ycx3sr6

METHOD AND DEVICE FOR PRODUCING A DESIRED BRAIN STATE. United States Patent #6488617
http://tinyurl.com/yf8f9ef

Opening score sampled from ‘New World Order’ by DJ Chris Geo http://www.blogtalkradio.com/truth-fr…

The AT Handbook on Amazon
UK: http://tinyurl.com/mwgmjo
US: http://tinyurl.com/mpauum
CA: http://tinyurl.com/y9c5qdk

http://www.theantiterrorist.co.uk
theantiterrorist@hotmail.com

Statism is Dead (66min)

KCartel — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:40:02 +0000

via freedomainradio.com – You do not live in a country. Take the red pill.

The Matrix is one of the greatest metaphors ever. Machines invented to make human life easier end up enslaving humanity – this is the most common theme in dystopian science fiction.

Why is this fear so universal – so compelling? Is it because we really believe that our toaster and our notebook will end up as our mechanical overlords?

Of course not.

This is not a future that we fear, but a past that we are already living.

Supposedly, governments were invented to make human life easier and safer, but governments always end up enslaving humanity.

That which we create to “serve” us ends up ruling us.

The US government “by and for the people” now imprisons millions, takes half the national income by force, over-regulates, punishes, tortures, slaughters foreigners, invades countries, overthrows governments, imposes 700 imperialistic bases overseas, inflates the currency, and crushes future generations with massive debts.

That which we create to “serve” us ends up ruling us.

The problem with the “state as servant” thesis is that it is historically completely false, both empirically and logically.

The idea that states were voluntarily invented by citizens to enhance their own security is utterly untrue.

Before governments, in tribal times, human beings could only produce what they consumed — there was no excess production of food or other resources. Thus, there was no point owning slaves, because the slave could not produce any excess that could be stolen by the master.

If a horse pulling a plow can only produce enough additional food to feed the horse, there is no point hunting, capturing and breaking in a horse.

However, when agricultural improvements allowed for the creation of excess crops, suddenly it became highly advantageous to own human beings.

When cows began to provide excess milk and meat, owning cows became worthwhile.

The earliest governments and empires were in fact a ruling class of slave hunters, who understood that because human beings could produce more than they consumed, they were worth hunting, capturing, breaking in – and owning.

The earliest Egyptian and Chinese empires were in reality human farms, where people were hunted, captured, domesticated and owned like any other form of livestock. Due to technological and methodological improvements, the slaves produced enough excess that the labor involved in capturing and keeping them represented only a small subset of their total productivity. The ruling class – the farmers – kept a large portion of that excess, while handing out gifts and payments to the brutalizing class – the police, slave hunters, and general sadists – and the propagandizing class – the priests, intellectuals, and artists.

This situation continued for thousands of years, until the 16-17th centuries, when again massive improvements in agricultural organization and technology created the second wave of excess productivity. The enclosure movement re-organized and consolidated farmland, resulting in 5-10 times more crops, creating a new class of industrial workers, displaced from the country and huddling in the new cities.

This enormous agricultural excess was the basis of the capital that drove the industrial revolution.

The Industrial Revolution did not arise because the ruling class wanted to free their serfs, but rather because they realized how additional “liberties” could make their livestock astoundingly more productive.

When cows are placed in very confining stalls, they beat their heads against the walls, resulting in injuries and infections. Thus farmers now give them more room — not because they want to set their cows free, but rather because they want greater productivity and lower costs.

The next stop after “free range” is not “freedom.”

The rise of state capitalism in the 19^th century was actually the rise of “free range serfdom.”

Additional liberties were granted to the human livestock not with the goal of setting them free, but rather with the goal of increasing their productivity.

Of course, intellectuals, artists and priests were – and are – well paid to conceal this reality.

The great problem of modern human livestock ownership is the challenge of “enthusiasm.”

State capitalism only works when the entrepreneurial spirit drives creativity and productivity in the economy.

However, excess productivity always creates a larger state, and swells the ruling classes and their dependents, which eats into the motivation for additional productivity. Taxes and regulations rise, state debt (future farming) increases, and living standards slow and decay.

Depression and despair began to spread, as the reality of being owned sets in for the general population.

The solution to this is additional propaganda, antidepressant medications, superstition, wars, moral campaigns of every kind, the creation of “enemies,” the inculcation of patriotism, collective fears, paranoia about “outsiders” and “immigrants,” and so on.

It is essential to understand the reality of the world.

When you look at a map of the world, you are not looking at countries, but farms.

You are allowed certain liberties – limited property ownership, movement rights, freedom of association and occupation – not because your government approves of these rights in principle – since it constantly violates them – but rather because “free range livestock” is so much cheaper to own and so more productive.

It is important to understand the reality of ideologies.

State capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, democracy – these are all livestock management approaches.

Some work well for long periods – state capitalism – and some work very badly – communism.

They all fail eventually, because it is immoral and irrational to treat human beings as livestock.

The recent growth of “freedom” in China, India and Asia is occurring because the local state farmers have upgraded their livestock management practices. They have recognized that putting the cows in a larger stall provides the rulers more milk and meat.

Rulers have also recognized that if they prevent you from fleeing the farm, you will become depressed, inert and unproductive. A serf is the most productive when he imagines he is free. Thus your rulers must provide you the illusion of freedom in order to harvest you most effectively.

Thus you are “allowed” to leave – but never to real freedom, only to another farm, because the whole world is a farm. They will prevent you from taking a lot of money, they will bury you in endless paperwork, they will restrict your right to work — but you are “free” to leave. Due to these difficulties, very few people do leave, but the illusion of mobility is maintained. If only 1 out of 1,000 cows escapes, but the illusion of escaping significantly raises the productivity of the remaining 999, it remains a net gain for the farmer.

You are also kept on the farm through licensing. The most productive livestock are the professionals, so the rulers fit them with an electronic dog collar called a “license,” which only allows them to practice their trade on their own farm.

To further create the illusion of freedom, in certain farms, the livestock are allowed to choose between a few farmers that the investors present. At best, they are given minor choices in how they are managed. They are never given the choice to shut down the farm, and be truly free.

Government schools are indoctrination pens for livestock. They train children to “love” the farm, and to fear true freedom and independence, and to attack anyone who questions the brutal reality of human ownership. Furthermore, they create jobs for the intellectuals that state propaganda so relies on.

The ridiculous contradictions of statism — like religion — can only be sustained through endless propaganda inflicted upon helpless children.

The idea that democracy and some sort of “social contract” justifies the brutal exercise of violent power over billions is patently ridiculous.

If you say to a slave that his ancestors “chose” slavery, and therefore he is bound by their decisions, he will simply say:

“If slavery is a choice, then I choose not to be a slave.”

This is the most frightening statement for the ruling classes, which is why they train their slaves to attack anyone who dares speak it.

Statism is not a philosophy.

Statism does not originate from historical evidence or rational principles.

Statism is an ex post facto justification for human ownership.

Statism is an excuse for violence.

Statism is an ideology, and all ideologies are variations on human livestock management practices.

Religion is pimped-out superstition, designed to drug children with fears that they will endlessly pay to have “alleviated.”

Nationalism is pimped-out bigotry, designed to provoke a Stockholm Syndrome in the livestock.

The opposite of superstition is not another superstition, but the truth.

The opposite of ideology is not a different ideology, but clear evidence and rational principles.

The opposite of superstition and ideology – of statism – is philosophy.

Reason and courage will set us free.

You do not have to be livestock.

Take the red pill.

Wake up.

via freedomainradio.com

Are you a Sovereign Yet? (110min)

KCartel — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 06:51:36 +0000

Find out how to use the “Without Prejudice UCC 1-207″ that Johnny is talking about in the video we have posted

John David Van Hove, aka Johnny Liberty, is an educator, visionary, whole systems strategic planner, researcher, business manager, consultant, and a specialist in free enterprise business development. He is committed to developing and funding 300 or more strategic companies over the next five years with the objective of building a free enterprise infrastructure worldwide. This plan includes organic food, affordable shelter, renewable energy, the environment, technology, communications, education, arts and music, health and conscious films. John David Van Hove is the Managing Director of the Institute for Communications Resources, or ICR, which provides a communications and networking infrastructure for global business development in the emerging markets of the world, along with producing educational and training components such as the Success Education Course. He offers structuring and company formation services through our marketing affiliates and associate partners such as the Southern Oregon Resource Center. He is also the publisher of the World Good News Service, the Waking
Giant News Service, or WGNS. Through his alias Johnny Liberty, he has authored eleven books including the best-selling Johnny Liberty – The Global Sovereign’s Handbook, the Sovereign American’s Handbook, the Sovereign Hawaiians Handbook, a book on the Individual Sovereignty Process, and Allodial Titles and Land Patents. He has compiled extensive legal research in the area of sovereignty and American law, and has been the primary researcher and contributor to the Global One Audio Seminar published by IGP.

Mr. Liberty has been a keynote speaker at many offshore events and has taught seminars for over 100,000 people. John David Van Hove developed the ICR Leadership Training Programs which will be offered as introductory, advanced and graduate programs for those completing this basic Success Education Course. Mr. Van Hove attended Michigan State University and studied biological sciences, humanistic psychology and oriental philosophy during the activist seventies. He has traveled extensively researching and experiencing many cultures, networking potentials and identifying key people, organizations, businesses, projects, programs and media in many systems areas. The fruits of a lifetime of research and networking are available on the ICR web site at: http://www.ICResource.com John David Van Hove is a true renaissance man with many diverse talents shaping new thought on the leading edge of social, political and economic change. He has been a powerful and compassionate influence on millions of people since the early seventies. He was there during the communications revolution and the emergence of the Internet. He was there during the human potential movement, founded communities and an environmental education center, built seven houses, played and wrote music, raised three families, produced hundreds of concerts and events, researched and contributed to making the concept of sovereignty a household word. Presently, he is involved in free enterprise business development and organizing new financial business models to revolutionize banking and company capitalization in the new millennium.

Johnny Liberty’s Facebook page
Johnny Liberty Linkedin page

TheAntiTerrorist on Poisons for Profit (33min)

KCartel — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:00:16 +0000

Your poison of choice?

TheAntiTerrorist 2010 Poison for profit info pack
http://www.theantiterrorist.co.uk/P4P…

Metal Corrosion caused by Fused Sodium Fluoride/Uranium Tetrafluoride Eutectic
http://tinyurl.com/yh4tnmh
Thanks to http://www.youtube.com/user/AnabolicM…for the link

Fluoridation by country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorida…

Professional Perspectives: Fluoride in Tap Water
http://tinyurl.com/7tkqrr

The Fluoride Deception
http://tinyurl.com/cenwxr
http://www.fluoridealert.org
http://americanfraud.com/arthurhayes….
http://people.forbes.com/profile/arth…

ASPARTAME INTERACTS WITH ALL DRUGS, VACCINES AND TOXINS
http://tinyurl.com/y92dc9j

The link between aspartame and brain tumors
http://tinyurl.com/mgm9ph

the truth about aspartame – Dr Russell Blaylock
http://tinyurl.com/4g8hyn

!!! Nutrasweet/Aspartame is now a “natural flavor” and rebranded as “AMINO SWEET”.

Opening score sampled from ‘New World Order’ by DJ Chris Geo http://www.blogtalkradio.com/truth-fr…

The AT Handbook:
UK: http://tinyurl.com/mwgmjo
US: http://tinyurl.com/mpauum
CA: http://tinyurl.com/y9c5qdk

www.theantiterrorist.co.uk
theantiterrorist@hotmail.com

TheAntiterrorist on ‘Standing’ in Court (30min)

KCartel — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 02:34:03 +0000

Are YOU Mr Defendant..?

TheAntiTerrorist on Standing in Court

Broadcast on 8 February 2009

Hello friends, I am TheAntiTerrorist. Thank you for your messages of support, your emails,

and for staying part of the conversation.

Now if you have been studying since my last video you will know that the court system is a

private business enterprise—it has little to do with justice, and everything to do with money.

Once you realise that and you go into these venues, the illusion crumbles somewhat and you

can see it for what it is. It’s a game. That’s why it’s called a court.

I need to add a caveat here; I’m not a lawyer, I do not have a bar card, I’m not a solicitor, I’m

not a member of the law society, I’m just offering you some information as to how I might do

things and how other people have done things under these circumstances.

In other words, I’m not offering legal advice here, so you law society chaps can wind your

necks back in.

For the sake of expediency, I am going to assume that you know what a person is, that you

know what a mister is, and that you know what a defendant is; they’re all legal fictions. I am

also going to assume that you have followed the Freeman process to some degree and that

you know how to stand your ground and claim your rights. I’m also going to assume that

you know how to put certain paperwork into the court before you go there, because

obviously you’re going to be making a special visitation or a special appearance. You can

find all of that information on the Net. So considering YouTube’s time constraints, let’s crack

on with it, shall we…

Let’s presume that you are being called into court for a parking violation or a speeding ticket

or some other triviality that has no victim whatsoever, but is only purely there to generate

revenue for the investors.

One thing I want you to understand before we get into the whole court thing, is that as a

creditor—if you have been following this education to the same degree that some of us have

—you will understand that you are the sponsor of the credit that keeps this country running.

You are a creditor, and a creditor behaves in a certain way; the creditor does not argue, he

does not fight, he does not dispute, he pays. I’m not talking about some fiat currency that

has no value outside of what the banksters say, I’m talking about paying with your

signature, which has more value than any note you’ve got in your pocket.

Once you understand how to do those procedures, you can pay quite happily. The object is

to stay in honour—a creditor stays in honour.

So despite that, I need to give you some tools. So—in the words of Kenny Rogers—

sometimes you have to fight when you’re a man, and you need tools to do that because they

are tricky little monkeys—they like to turn you upside down and shake the money out of

your pockets, and squeeze a little blood out at the same time.

So you want to go in there fully kitted-up for a potential fight, but with a view to settling and

closing amicably and honourably. I hope that’s understood.

::The following is a metaphor: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an

object or action to which it is not literally applicable. Source: Oxford American Dictionary::

I’m not advocating fighting in court, I’m advocating you go to a knife fight with a knife, but

have a gun tucked in the back of your trousers just in case.

::The preceding was a metaphor: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to

an object or action to which it is not literally applicable. Source: Oxford American

Dictionary::

Now, contrary to popular belief, the game doesn’t start when you get in the courtroom, it

starts as soon as you arrive in the building, because there is a request for your name as you

AntiTerrorist?” and I might say, “Well I am called…” Let’s see, what can TheAntiTerrorist’s

first name be? Nevill—oh, Tristram… Bartholomew…Timothy. Timothy AntiTerrorist… Timothy

AntiTerrorist. Does that sound badass enough for you?

So…

“I am called Timothy, and I am here as a third-party intervener. I am here as the authorised

representative for that particular person, and I intend to assist the court in the settlement and

closure of this account. Now, when you call me later, would you be so kind as to refer to me

as Timothy? Thank you very much. I’ll be sitting down over there, give me a call when

you’re ready.”

And then, I would walk away.

Having established that you are there in some capacity or other, you are likely to be

approached by the solicitor for the claimant or the plaintiff as well, shortly after registering

your appearance there at the court, and they will be trying to play the name game with you

as well. You should politely and courteously dismiss them and tell them that you will talk to

them in chambers or in court, you have no desire to contract with them at all, and any

resolution that will come out of today’s meeting will be done in the court and certainly not

face-to-face in some sort of private contract with them at that particular time. Be polite, be

courteous, just tell them you’ll talk to them in chambers or in court and then turn around

and walk away if you have to. Do not engage them in any way, shape or form.

You’ll find when you approach the court as a sovereign—as a creditor—and you’ve filed

your paperwork properly—you’ve filed an amicus curiæ perhaps, or you’ve filed a

declaration of political status beforehand. The court are aware that you are coming in and

you’re making a special visitation, the court will no doubt try to leave you till last. You’ll be

sitting there waiting for hours in some cases. I know from my own experience whilst dealing

with my own cases, or being involved with other people’s cases, you could be sitting there

for two or three hours at a time, because they want you to be dealt with out-of-sight, so that

no one can see that you know what you’re talking about [and] that you know your rights

and you know it’s all a silly game.

So you may have to wait, if you’ve done your process properly, but once you have, the clerk

will call you, “Timothy! Timothy for the parking case, are you here?”

“Yes, I am here to deal with that matter.”

And so the clerk will lead you to the door of the courtroom or the door of the private

chambers, they will knock and they will open the door.

Magistrate Jones:

“Roll up, roll up…” [continuing circus barker/shell game banter...] “Oh…yes…parking ticket,

is it? Wonderful, wonderful, yes—bring in the next victim, uh, defendant, please. Yes—what

are you looking at? You’ve never seen a bloke in a dress and a wig before? You need to get

yourself down to King’s Cross Station, plenty of ‘em down there.”

Honestly, the things I have to do to get my point across.

Now of course, the judge isn’t going to look like that, he’s not going to have a wig on,

certainly not in any county court. You may see it every now and then during a big case in the

high court or the supreme court, but this is purely to make the distinction.

Having done that they will try to usher you in. You will stop at the door, and you will ask the

following question: “Sir,” (I never say, ‘Your Honour,’ it makes me feel like an ant. I don’t

mind saying, ‘sir,’ because it’s quite polite.) I might say, “Sir, are we on the record?

And the judge will probably say, “Yes, the recorder’s on,” and so on and so forth and he’ll be

quite dismissive—or maybe he’ll be quite lovely, you never know. These people are human

beings, after all, and they have lives and wives and children and dogs that pee in the house,

and so their day could go just as well or just as badly as yours could and you need to take

that into account.

The judge is going to ask for your name. He’s going to try the whole name-game trick with

you, he will be saying, “Are you Mr AntiTerrorist?” or “Mr AntiTerrorist, sit down,” “Mr

AntiTerrorist this,” “Mr AntiTerrorist that,” and I might have a few responses [ready]

because they are going to do it a lot. It’s the little game, it’s the trying-to-establishjurisdiction-

game, and if you submit to that jurisdiction, you are toast. As soon as you give it

to the first instance where he tries to trap you with that little trick you are done.

There’s a very well-known story amongst the creditor/sovereign community in which a

sovereign went into court and asked the question (to the judge) , “Sir, do you have a claim

against me?” and the judge said, “No, I do not.” And [the man] asked the same question of

the barrister—or lawyer—and of course the barrister—or the lawyer—had to say no, too.

The man was chewing a toothpick while he was saying this and of course he said, “As no

one else has a claim on me here for the record, I am done here, my business is done here, and

I’m leaving.”

He turned around and started to walk out. The judge, in response to this, called out,

“Take that toothpick out of your mouth.”

The chap turned around, removed the toothpick from his mouth to reply, and as soon as he

did, [several] bailiffs pounced on him and took him down to a cell. He had followed an order

and was therefore under the jurisdiction of the court.

It’s really that simple. And they’ll do it with you all the time.

Anyhow, once I knew that things were being recorded, I would then state, for the record,

“Sir, would it be alright with you if I entered this room and engaged in these proceedings

with a full reservation of my unalienable rights?”

Now of course, the judge is probably going to be silent in response to that, but you need to

get that silence on the record.

“For and on the record as there is no objection from the court, I will now be entering in these

proceedings and engaging in them under my own terms and conditions with the full

reservation of my unalienable rights. Are there any objections?”

Of course, there won’t be any objections, because how could they deny you your rights? That

would be silly. After all, who has the right to deny you your rights? We’re all born equal, are

we not?

Or perhaps the judge was born a little more equal than you were.

You tell me.

Once you’ve established you’re in that courtroom under your own steam and under your

own terms and conditions, you may approach the table, and the judge may try his little tricks

again and say, “That’s where the defendant sits.”

Every opportunity, every offer he makes to you, I would say, “Sir,”—everything a question,

of course, because if you remember from my previous broadcasts, the master asks the

questions, and the servant answers them.

“Sir, would it be alright with you if I sat where the defendant sits, thus reserving all of my

rights?”

At no point will you get an objection to this because they know they cannot deny you your

rights. And you only have the rights you know how to claim. You are going to spend the

whole case claiming your rights. You’ll only be in there for five or ten minutes, no doubt, but

you’re going to spend those ten minutes in a very highly-pitched game of mental chess

between you and the judge.

Who can outwit each other? Unless the judge is a very nice bloke.

Before you start the conversation regarding the issue at hand, you will need to put the judge

on his oath. Effectively, that means you’re neutralising him, he cannot practice law from

behind the bench. And how do we do that?

I will ask the judge, “Sir, do you have an Oath of Office?” and the judge might say something

like…

Magistrate Jones:

“Uh, what? No. I mean, yes. I mean, I signed something at some point, erm, I think I have an

oath on a piece of paper somewhere… No. Yes, I do! No! Is it… no, it’s not here with me

today. Yes, it is. I, I don’t know. Yes, I have… No. I haven’t.”

You will get all of that. And you’re gonna have those conversations, you’re going to be

wriggling and they’re going to be wriggling, and so on and so forth, but then the next

question, of course, is, “Sir, if you don’t have an oath of office, how am I to know you are a

judge or not?”

If he says he doesn’t have an oath, then I might ask, “Sir, with all due respect, am I to

understand you’re impersonating a judge? Am I to understand you won’t qualify your oath,

and that you are impersonating an official? Sir, if you don’t have an oath of office, you have

no authority to be sitting there and you need to step down. Am I wrong?”

Ultimately, your final statement will be. “For on the record, this courrt takes judicial notice of

the judge’s oath.”

Now once you’ve said that, if the judge tries to practice law from behind the bench, or tries

to make any legal determinations, you are going to have him. You are going to have him

good.

The judge can only really mediate, he cannot get involved in any way, shape or form. If he

does you have it on the record that he has been operating ultra vires—outside the scope of

his office, outside the scope of his powers.

So that’s key.

So, you have the judge neutralised, he’s sitting there on the court as the referee and it’s

between you and the solicitor representing the plaintiff.

So, regarding the name issue, the judge is going to try to get you under his jurisdiction—he

is going to try and create joinder between you and the legal fiction as many times as he

possibly can and he will do that in many, many devious ways during the conversation. He

might say,

Magistrate Jones:

“Oh now don’t be a silly bugger, are you or are you not Mr AntiTerrorist?”

Timothy:

“I am here as a trustee of a private trust of which Mr AntiTerrorist and the public are

beneficiaries. Does anyone have any objection to me appearing as such?”

Magistrate Jones:

“Who are you?”

Timothy:

“I am who I say I am, sir. Who are you?”

Magistrate Jones:

“How.. how very dare you? I am Magistrate Jones, don’t you know?”

Timothy:

“Is that your given name, sir? Were you christened Magistrate Jones? Or is that some legal

fiction appellation “

Magistrate Jones:

“Is this your name on my piece of paper or not?”

Timothy:

“Oh, well, if you would let me see it I could tell you, sir…oh, no, no, I’m not that person, sir,

however, I am the agent for the name of the corporation on that piece of paper. How can I

assist the court in that capacity?”

Magistrate Jones:

“Please…please, Mr AntiTerrorist…”

Timothy:

“Sir, with the greatest of respect, you keep calling me Mr AntiTerrorist—now is it not true

that the title, ‘Mr’ is only attributed to fictions, for and on the record, sir, is that not true?”

Magistrate Jones:

“Look, I’m just calling you ‘Mr’ because I’m being polite—it’s the polite thing to do, don’t

you know? Weren’t you taught that when you were young? Didn’t your family have any

manners? We call each other ‘Mr,’ it’s the polite thing to do.”

Timothy:

“As I have previously stated, I am commonly known as ‘Timothy,’ and I do not like to be

called ‘Mr,’ and so you are dishonouring me in doing so. Would you mind from now on

referring to me as ‘Timothy’ during these proceedings? I’ll be very grateful to you, sir, would

you be so kind as to do that?”

Magistrate Jones:

“Please state your name for the record.”

Timothy:

“Sir, I am the authorised representative for that person with the full power of attorney. Is that

not clear in my paperwork, sir? Would you like more time to look through my paperwork?

Would that help the court?”

Magistrate Jones:

“Mr AntiTerrorist, do you mind?”

Timothy:

“By asserting that I am that legal fiction on that piece of paper, sir, are you suggesting that I

am public property?”

Magistrate Jones:

“Are you ready to proceed, Mr AntiTerrorist?”

Timothy:

“By calling me ‘Mr,’ it would appear that you are operating under the presumption that I am

an en legis UK person. Just what are the assumptions here? Are you assuming that I am

consenting to these proceedings? Are you assuming that I have elected to submit to the

jurisdiction? Is that your assumption for the record, sir?”

Magistrate Jones:

“Are you ready to proceed or not, Mr AntiTerrorist?”

Timothy:

“Do you have a contract where I have confessed to being a UK subject? Is that where you

want to go? Attempt to coerce me into a contract? It is my understanding that you cannot

lawfully proceed if I do not consent, and that you cannot lawfully make me consent. Is that

not correct? Yes? Or No? For the record, sir.”

Magistrate Jones:

“Now you listen here, you don’t have that right in my court.”

Timothy:

“Really? Sir, do you have a private court? Then you have no authority to hear this. I’m

guaranteed rights, I’m guaranteed to be heard in this court, sir. Is it not true that you should

step down?”

Of course, I wouldn’t be that belligerent. I am exaggerating for effect. But you get my point—

they will try to do that at every opportunity. And you need to be able to deal with it.

Now, a little trick that I like to use when dealing with my own cases in court, which puts a

stop to any of that Mr/Defendant monkey business is I’ll take my birth certificate in there,

and if the judge starts the Mister-ing or he starts defendant-ing, I will take my birth

certificate out of my folder and I’ll say, “Sir, just to avoid any confusion, would you mind if I

place the defendant here on the table in front of you so that you know who you are

addressing at any point in this conversation.”

Now, the judge doesn’t like that very much. In fact, a couple of my friends have been thrown

out of court for doing that, which just goes to show that there is a major, major issue with

that particular piece of paper.

But that’s what I will do, and in some cases judges can handle it and in some cases they can’t.

Because they know that the person they are referring to is the person that is associated with

the bond that is sitting in front of them on that table.

Now there are several things that you need to keep in place whilst you are operating in that

courtroom, and I’m going to make a few suggestions.

The first thing you need to do is to calm down. Really. This is going to be a very intense ten

minutes, fifteen minutes, or whatever it might be, and you need to preserve your energy,

make sure that you are in a state of mind that you can cope with the pressure, So just

suppress the need to rush. Don’t babble, you will really shoot yourself in the foot. Take a

deep breath before you speak. Speak slowly and clearly.

Slow Down.

You need to display a peaceful confidence. You stand there, stand your ground, as a Man on

the Land in a private business venue, doing business. That’s all it is. It’s just business.

Don’t repeat yourself. Ask a question, leave a little time for an answer, and if they refuse to

answer, get their silence on the record.

Don’t argue or testify—you’ll play right into their hands and invite a contempt charge.

Don’t say, “No,” or “But,” or explain or justify. When you testify, you are participating in an

appearance, you’re confessing to your status as the debtor, as the defendant.

Don’t be aggressive.

Magistrate Jones:

“What are you doing?! Step back! Get away from me!”

Don’t start shouting at the judge and having him get all upset and leave the room—you’re

not going to get your remedy that way.

Don’t use language they don’t understand. A lot of this language going around the freedom

movement at the moment, the patriot movement, these judges have no clue what you’re

talking about. Make you conversation accessible and understandable for the judge in the

court so that he can provide you with the remedy that you need.

Always invite objections to your questions. “Does anyone object to what I just said?”

Note the absence of objections, then get them on the record.

Now, how about getting your evidence onto the record?

I might use the other party to do that, I might ask the plaintiff, “Did your client receive the

copy of the notice of default on January the 2nd, 2008? If not, here’s a copy. Would you mid

reading that to me, please, so I can know that we are both seeing from the same page?”

Or, I might say to the judge, “Sir, I believe you have a copy of the notice of default which was

filed into the case under a notary seal on January the 3rd, 2008, would you mind pulling that

out, please, and just reading that to me so that I know we both have the same document?”

Now if he then says,

Magistrate Jones:

“I’m not reading that into the record.”

I might say,

Timothy:

“For on the record, why would you not read it into evidence, sir?

Magistrate Jones:

“That document’s not in my file, it’s disappeared.”

Timothy:

“Really, sir? Who else has access to that file? Was it stolen? Has a police report been filed

regarding that incident, sir?”

Now, if you cannot get them to read your evidence into the record, read it into the record

yourself, if necessary, calmly and lawyer-ly. If they try to talk over you, speak louder – make

sure that you get that evidence on the record.

What if you’re dealing with bonds, and he says,

Magistrate Jones:

“This promissory note is bogus – it’s nonsense, absolutely nonsense.”

Timothy:

“Am I to understand you’re claiming that a document recognised by a public official is

hearsay? Is that your position? Are you suggesting then, sir, that the notary who issued the

certificate of default is in error, or is a liar, sir? For the record. Are you claiming this is not a

genuine negotiable instrument?”

Magistrate Jones:

“It certainly seems to have a veneer of legality, but I’ve never seen anything like this before.”

Timothy:

“Well your own code says it is – UCC 3104, UCC 3604, and as this is an admiralty court, I can

only assume that the UCC is in good effect here…are you not aware of the statute that says if

you decline payment, you are holding the liability? Or, judge, with all due respect, are you

an expert in negotiable instruments?”

Well, he has to say, ‘No,’ of course, and if he remains silent I would get that silence on the

record.

Timothy:

“Sir, let the record show that by your silence you admit that you are not an expert in

negotiable instruments, but did you bring an expert with you? Do you have a Certificate of

Protest from treasury regarding that promissory note? Do you have a Notice of Dishonour

form treasury, perhaps? Is there a defect in the instrument? Do you have any first-hand

knowledge of defect in the instrument? Let me have a look at that – oh, that’s odd, it doesn’t

appear to have any markings on it – it hasn’t been processed or cancelled, has it? so you are

going to claim it’s a bogus instrument when you haven’t even put it into the system to

negotiate. You are holding the liability, sir, and you’ve just confessed to misappropriation of

funds.”

Now remembering that we are there to pay to settle, close and to act honourably, you are

going to get the odd contempt citation when you start playing by your rules on their court.

Magistrate Jones:

“One more word out of you, you little rapscallion and I will hold you in contempt of court.”

So how do we deal with contempt?

Well, the first thing I might ask is,

Timothy:

“What kind of contempt, sir, civil or criminal?”

Magistrate Jones:

“Why civil contempt, civil contempt…”

Now, civil contempt depends upon a contract. Without a contract, now agreement for

performance exists.

Timothy:

“What is the controversy between us, sir, where is the contract requiring performance?

Where is the claim? How am I in contempt of a contract, sir? Produce the contract and I will

resolve this matter immediately. Bring it forth. An I in breach? Have I failed to perform on

that contract?”

Magistrate Jones:

“Criminal contempt, criminal contempt, I tell you, by Jove.”

Criminal contempt requires an injured party and a claim. So I might say,

Timothy:

“Who’s making the claim? And where is the injured party? Are you making a claim, sir?”

And you can also question the venue with regards to contempt,

Timothy:

“Sir, the law provides for two forms of criminal prosecution, one is under the common law

and one is under the admiralty, or military, jurisdiction; which do you presume you are

going to charge me with?”

Now, if he says ‘admiralty,’ which is highly unlikely, I might say, “I accept that charge sir,

and I agree to pay it right now pursuant to public policy. Who has a pen and paper so I can

write my bond?”

If he says, ‘common law,’ which again is highly unlikely, where is the injured party? Where is

the affidavit of probably cause sworn by two witnesses with first-hand knowledge of the

crime? Do you have any of those things?”

When the questioning gets tough, the judge might try to cut it off by saying,

Magistrate Jones:

“Ha! God’s teeth you nincompoop, I don’t have to answer your questions – now we’re not

here to answer your questions today – now how would you like to plead?”

Timothy:

“Is there some reason why you don’t want to answer relevant questions and would rather

hold me in contempt for asking them? What are you trying to hide here, sir? Is there some

criminal activity that needs disclosing? Are you aware that I have the right to question this

court’s authority or anything else I don’t understand, sir? Can you proceed without my

understanding? Without making full disclosure to me of the law venue and the

consequences of my decisions here today?”

The judges have been known to get quite aggressive when under the pressure of intense

questioning. And they have been known to lose it.

Magistrate Jones:

“Mr AntiTerrorist, I am warning you, I am going to rip your head off your shoulders and

throw you out of this court on your behind if you do not stop messing about. Now. Really.

Let’s play this game properly by my rules or not at all.”

Timothy:

“Excuse me, sir, but I’m standing here shaking in my boots at your outburst, are you okay?

You’re yelling at the top of your lungs and you’re face is red, you’re foaming at the mouth,

you’re slamming the bench – are you having a physical problem or a mental problem, sir?

I’m really concerned about your health. You need to call a recess and compose yourself

because the record shows that justice cannot be served here today. Or would you like to

recuse yourself?”

Magistrate Jones:

“Now look here, stop wasting the court’s time – do you understand the charges you are

under here today?”

Now, unless you’re ready to act like a creditor and pay those charges, I would say, “No, sir, I

do not understand, sir, am I obliged to understand those charges? Am I obliged to seize,

grasp or comprehend them?”

If I was a creditor, of course, and I was in there as a sovereign man, I would say, “Yes, sir, of

course I stand under those charges, where do I pay them? Let me get a pen.”

Chances are, you’ll get railroaded, and the judge will issue an order of some sort, and then

you can deal with it commercially afterwards if you study in the right places.

But there is always a remedy, there is always a commercial remedy, and with regards to

commerce, your remedy comes after the fact. So when the police abuse you or your rights,

you can then deal with that commercially afterwards by using the commercial lien process,

and I highly recommend you look into that.

Now the information I have given you in this broadcast is not exhaustive. I’m painting in

broad brushstrokes. But I recommend you look into Acceptance for Value – if a judge issues

you an order, then give him a bill. Watch Robert Menard’s videos with regards to that, you

can have quite a lot of fun with that technology.

There is a lot to learn. I am very clear that I am where I am in my understanding today

because of my teachers – Sam Kennedy, Winston Shrout, Jack Smith – to name but a few who

are paving the way in terms of developing this information and making it accessible for all of

us to use.

There is a chap called Marc Stevens who wrote Adventures in legal Land, I highly

recommend his work – he is very, very eloquent and very knowledgeable, and certainly

worth your time. – never giving you legal advice, of course, just empowering you.

I would like to point out that there is a lot of misinformation out there too, and I highly

recommend you develop a noise filter for all of this stuff, particularly when it comes to the

1099 process. You need to look at what is being said by the authorities regarding these

matters. The treasury might put out a post or the IRS might put out a post, you need to learn

to read that in a very particular way to see that sometimes they are actually giving you a clue

as to how to perfect this process.

Of course, the timid and the fearful will read it and immediately give up, and return to the

slave mentality. But I urge you, develop your filter, and study carefully and follow people

like Robert Menard, read Mary Croft’s book, How I Clobbered Every Cash-Confiscatory

Bureaucratic so and so and so…and I would also start to look at the forums,

thinkfreeforums.org is a good one, lots of information on there and lots of very

knowledgeable people on there who can help you. they also have a UK-specific section, in

fact they have a world-wide section on thinkfreeforums.org and you can pretty much

guarantee your country will be in there somewhere.

Robert Menard’s new idea with regards to creating a society is also a very, very profound

one and certainly one that I would advocate, and I highly recommend you go to his site

www.worldfreemansociety.org and if you go to his YouTube page, the channel name is

MrMitee.

I hope this information was useful to you and that you can use it in some way and that you

will keep studying and keep empowering yourself.

Thanks for listening.

HEO

9 February 2009

TheAntiTerrorist & Velluminous Press would like to take this opportunity to point out that in theselitigious times it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that we—as a community of kindred souls—oncevalued common sense. So cast back in your memory to that long-forgotten concept and embrace thefact that the TheAntiTerrorist & Velluminous Press stand above all for freedom and personalresponsibility. Simply stated, how you apply this information in your own life has nothing to do withus. These transcripts are for education and entertainment purposes only.TheAntiTerrorist on Standing in CourtBroadcast on 8 February 2009Hello friends, I am TheAntiTerrorist. Thank you for your messages of support, your emails,and for staying part of the conversation.Now if you have been studying since my last video you will know that the court system is aprivate business enterprise—it has little to do with justice, and everything to do with money.Once you realise that and you go into these venues, the illusion crumbles somewhat and youcan see it for what it is. It’s a game. That’s why it’s called a court.I need to add a caveat here; I’m not a lawyer, I do not have a bar card, I’m not a solicitor, I’mnot a member of the law society, I’m just offering you some information as to how I might dothings and how other people have done things under these circumstances.In other words, I’m not offering legal advice here, so you law society chaps can wind yournecks back in.For the sake of expediency, I am going to assume that you know what a person is, that youknow what a mister is, and that you know what a defendant is; they’re all legal fictions. I amalso going to assume that you have followed the Freeman process to some degree and thatyou know how to stand your ground and claim your rights. I’m also going to assume thatyou know how to put certain paperwork into the court before you go there, becauseobviously you’re going to be making a special visitation or a special appearance. You canfind all of that information on the Net. So considering YouTube’s time constraints, let’s crackon with it, shall we…Let’s presume that you are being called into court for a parking violation or a speeding ticketor some other triviality that has no victim whatsoever, but is only purely there to generaterevenue for the investors.One thing I want you to understand before we get into the whole court thing, is that as acreditor—if you have been following this education to the same degree that some of us have—you will understand that you are the sponsor of the credit that keeps this country running.You are a creditor, and a creditor behaves in a certain way; the creditor does not argue, hedoes not fight, he does not dispute, he pays. I’m not talking about some fiat currency thathas no value outside of what the banksters say, I’m talking about paying with yoursignature, which has more value than any note you’ve got in your pocket.Once you understand how to do those procedures, you can pay quite happily. The object isto stay in honour—a creditor stays in honour.So despite that, I need to give you some tools. So—in the words of Kenny Rogers—sometimes you have to fight when you’re a man, and you need tools to do that because theyare tricky little monkeys—they like to turn you upside down and shake the money out ofyour pockets, and squeeze a little blood out at the same time.So you want to go in there fully kitted-up for a potential fight, but with a view to settling andclosing amicably and honourably. I hope that’s understood.::The following is a metaphor: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to anobject or action to which it is not literally applicable. Source: Oxford American Dictionary::I’m not advocating fighting in court, I’m advocating you go to a knife fight with a knife, buthave a gun tucked in the back of your trousers just in case.::The preceding was a metaphor: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied toan object or action to which it is not literally applicable. Source: Oxford AmericanDictionary::Now, contrary to popular belief, the game doesn’t start when you get in the courtroom, itstarts as soon as you arrive in the building, because there is a request for your name as youregister for the case at hand, so the clerk might approach you and say, “Are you MrAntiTerrorist?” and I might say, “Well I am called…” Let’s see, what can TheAntiTerrorist’sfirst name be? Nevill—oh, Tristram… Bartholomew…Timothy. Timothy AntiTerrorist… TimothyAntiTerrorist. Does that sound badass enough for you?So…“I am called Timothy, and I am here as a third-party intervener. I am here as the authorisedrepresentative for that particular person, and I intend to assist the court in the settlement andclosure of this account. Now, when you call me later, would you be so kind as to refer to meas Timothy? Thank you very much. I’ll be sitting down over there, give me a call whenyou’re ready.”And then, I would walk away.Having established that you are there in some capacity or other, you are likely to beapproached by the solicitor for the claimant or the plaintiff as well, shortly after registeringyour appearance there at the court, and they will be trying to play the name game with youas well. You should politely and courteously dismiss them and tell them that you will talk tothem in chambers or in court, you have no desire to contract with them at all, and anyresolution that will come out of today’s meeting will be done in the court and certainly notface-to-face in some sort of private contract with them at that particular time. Be polite, becourteous, just tell them you’ll talk to them in chambers or in court and then turn aroundand walk away if you have to. Do not engage them in any way, shape or form.You’ll find when you approach the court as a sovereign—as a creditor—and you’ve filedyour paperwork properly—you’ve filed an amicus curiæ perhaps, or you’ve filed adeclaration of political status beforehand. The court are aware that you are coming in andyou’re making a special visitation, the court will no doubt try to leave you till last. You’ll besitting there waiting for hours in some cases. I know from my own experience whilst dealingwith my own cases, or being involved with other people’s cases, you could be sitting therefor two or three hours at a time, because they want you to be dealt with out-of-sight, so thatno one can see that you know what you’re talking about [and] that you know your rightsand you know it’s all a silly game.So you may have to wait, if you’ve done your process properly, but once you have, the clerkwill call you, “Timothy! Timothy for the parking case, are you here?”“Yes, I am here to deal with that matter.”And so the clerk will lead you to the door of the courtroom or the door of the privatechambers, they will knock and they will open the door.Magistrate Jones:“Roll up, roll up…” [continuing circus barker/shell game banter...] “Oh…yes…parking ticket,is it? Wonderful, wonderful, yes—bring in the next victim, uh, defendant, please. Yes—whatare you looking at? You’ve never seen a bloke in a dress and a wig before? You need to getyourself down to King’s Cross Station, plenty of ‘em down there.”Honestly, the things I have to do to get my point across.Now of course, the judge isn’t going to look like that, he’s not going to have a wig on,certainly not in any county court. You may see it every now and then during a big case in thehigh court or the supreme court, but this is purely to make the distinction.Having done that they will try to usher you in. You will stop at the door, and you will ask thefollowing question: “Sir,” (I never say, ‘Your Honour,’ it makes me feel like an ant. I don’tmind saying, ‘sir,’ because it’s quite polite.) I might say, “Sir, are we on the record?And the judge will probably say, “Yes, the recorder’s on,” and so on and so forth and he’ll bequite dismissive—or maybe he’ll be quite lovely, you never know. These people are humanbeings, after all, and they have lives and wives and children and dogs that pee in the house,and so their day could go just as well or just as badly as yours could and you need to takethat into account.The judge is going to ask for your name. He’s going to try the whole name-game trick withyou, he will be saying, “Are you Mr AntiTerrorist?” or “Mr AntiTerrorist, sit down,” “MrAntiTerrorist this,” “Mr AntiTerrorist that,” and I might have a few responses [ready]because they are going to do it a lot. It’s the little game, it’s the trying-to-establishjurisdiction-game, and if you submit to that jurisdiction, you are toast. As soon as you give itto the first instance where he tries to trap you with that little trick you are done.There’s a very well-known story amongst the creditor/sovereign community in which asovereign went into court and asked the question (to the judge) , “Sir, do you have a claimagainst me?” and the judge said, “No, I do not.” And [the man] asked the same question ofthe barrister—or lawyer—and of course the barrister—or the lawyer—had to say no, too.The man was chewing a toothpick while he was saying this and of course he said, “As noone else has a claim on me here for the record, I am done here, my business is done here, andI’m leaving.”He turned around and started to walk out. The judge, in response to this, called out,“Take that toothpick out of your mouth.”The chap turned around, removed the toothpick from his mouth to reply, and as soon as hedid, [several] bailiffs pounced on him and took him down to a cell. He had followed an orderand was therefore under the jurisdiction of the court.It’s really that simple. And they’ll do it with you all the time.Anyhow, once I knew that things were being recorded, I would then state, for the record,“Sir, would it be alright with you if I entered this room and engaged in these proceedingswith a full reservation of my unalienable rights?”Now of course, the judge is probably going to be silent in response to that, but you need toget that silence on the record.“For and on the record as there is no objection from the court, I will now be entering in theseproceedings and engaging in them under my own terms and conditions with the fullreservation of my unalienable rights. Are there any objections?”Of course, there won’t be any objections, because how could they deny you your rights? Thatwould be silly. After all, who has the right to deny you your rights? We’re all born equal, arewe not?Or perhaps the judge was born a little more equal than you were.You tell me.Once you’ve established you’re in that courtroom under your own steam and under yourown terms and conditions, you may approach the table, and the judge may try his little tricksagain and say, “That’s where the defendant sits.”Every opportunity, every offer he makes to you, I would say, “Sir,”—everything a question,of course, because if you remember from my previous broadcasts, the master asks thequestions, and the servant answers them.“Sir, would it be alright with you if I sat where the defendant sits, thus reserving all of myrights?”At no point will you get an objection to this because they know they cannot deny you yourrights. And you only have the rights you know how to claim. You are going to spend thewhole case claiming your rights. You’ll only be in there for five or ten minutes, no doubt, butyou’re going to spend those ten minutes in a very highly-pitched game of mental chessbetween you and the judge.Who can outwit each other? Unless the judge is a very nice bloke.Before you start the conversation regarding the issue at hand, you will need to put the judgeon his oath. Effectively, that means you’re neutralising him, he cannot practice law frombehind the bench. And how do we do that?I will ask the judge, “Sir, do you have an Oath of Office?” and the judge might say somethinglike…Magistrate Jones:“Uh, what? No. I mean, yes. I mean, I signed something at some point, erm, I think I have anoath on a piece of paper somewhere… No. Yes, I do! No! Is it… no, it’s not here with metoday. Yes, it is. I, I don’t know. Yes, I have… No. I haven’t.”You will get all of that. And you’re gonna have those conversations, you’re going to bewriggling and they’re going to be wriggling, and so on and so forth, but then the nextquestion, of course, is, “Sir, if you don’t have an oath of office, how am I to know you are ajudge or not?”If he says he doesn’t have an oath, then I might ask, “Sir, with all due respect, am I tounderstand you’re impersonating a judge? Am I to understand you won’t qualify your oath,and that you are impersonating an official? Sir, if you don’t have an oath of office, you haveno authority to be sitting there and you need to step down. Am I wrong?”Ultimately, your final statement will be. “For on the record, this courrt takes judicial notice ofthe judge’s oath.”Now once you’ve said that, if the judge tries to practice law from behind the bench, or triesto make any legal determinations, you are going to have him. You are going to have himgood.The judge can only really mediate, he cannot get involved in any way, shape or form. If hedoes you have it on the record that he has been operating ultra vires—outside the scope ofhis office, outside the scope of his powers.So that’s key.So, you have the judge neutralised, he’s sitting there on the court as the referee and it’sbetween you and the solicitor representing the plaintiff.So, regarding the name issue, the judge is going to try to get you under his jurisdiction—heis going to try and create joinder between you and the legal fiction as many times as hepossibly can and he will do that in many, many devious ways during the conversation. Hemight say,Magistrate Jones:“Oh now don’t be a silly bugger, are you or are you not Mr AntiTerrorist?”Timothy:“I am here as a trustee of a private trust of which Mr AntiTerrorist and the public arebeneficiaries. Does anyone have any objection to me appearing as such?”Magistrate Jones:“Who are you?”Timothy:“I am who I say I am, sir. Who are you?”Magistrate Jones:“How.. how very dare you? I am Magistrate Jones, don’t you know?”Timothy:“Is that your given name, sir? Were you christened Magistrate Jones? Or is that some legalfiction appellation “Magistrate Jones:“Is this your name on my piece of paper or not?”Timothy:“Oh, well, if you would let me see it I could tell you, sir…oh, no, no, I’m not that person, sir,however, I am the agent for the name of the corporation on that piece of paper. How can Iassist the court in that capacity?”Magistrate Jones:“Please…please, Mr AntiTerrorist…”Timothy:“Sir, with the greatest of respect, you keep calling me Mr AntiTerrorist—now is it not truethat the title, ‘Mr’ is only attributed to fictions, for and on the record, sir, is that not true?”Magistrate Jones:“Look, I’m just calling you ‘Mr’ because I’m being polite—it’s the polite thing to do, don’tyou know? Weren’t you taught that when you were young? Didn’t your family have anymanners? We call each other ‘Mr,’ it’s the polite thing to do.”Timothy:“As I have previously stated, I am commonly known as ‘Timothy,’ and I do not like to becalled ‘Mr,’ and so you are dishonouring me in doing so. Would you mind from now onreferring to me as ‘Timothy’ during these proceedings? I’ll be very grateful to you, sir, wouldyou be so kind as to do that?”Magistrate Jones:“Please state your name for the record.”Timothy:“Sir, I am the authorised representative for that person with the full power of attorney. Is thatnot clear in my paperwork, sir? Would you like more time to look through my paperwork?Would that help the court?”Magistrate Jones:“Mr AntiTerrorist, do you mind?”Timothy:“By asserting that I am that legal fiction on that piece of paper, sir, are you suggesting that Iam public property?”Magistrate Jones:“Are you ready to proceed, Mr AntiTerrorist?”Timothy:“By calling me ‘Mr,’ it would appear that you are operating under the presumption that I aman en legis UK person. Just what are the assumptions here? Are you assuming that I amconsenting to these proceedings? Are you assuming that I have elected to submit to thejurisdiction? Is that your assumption for the record, sir?”Magistrate Jones:“Are you ready to proceed or not, Mr AntiTerrorist?”Timothy:“Do you have a contract where I have confessed to being a UK subject? Is that where youwant to go? Attempt to coerce me into a contract? It is my understanding that you cannotlawfully proceed if I do not consent, and that you cannot lawfully make me consent. Is thatnot correct? Yes? Or No? For the record, sir.”Magistrate Jones:“Now you listen here, you don’t have that right in my court.”Timothy:“Really? Sir, do you have a private court? Then you have no authority to hear this. I’mguaranteed rights, I’m guaranteed to be heard in this court, sir. Is it not true that you shouldstep down?”Of course, I wouldn’t be that belligerent. I am exaggerating for effect. But you get my point—they will try to do that at every opportunity. And you need to be able to deal with it.Now, a little trick that I like to use when dealing with my own cases in court, which puts astop to any of that Mr/Defendant monkey business is I’ll take my birth certificate in there,and if the judge starts the Mister-ing or he starts defendant-ing, I will take my birthcertificate out of my folder and I’ll say, “Sir, just to avoid any confusion, would you mind if Iplace the defendant here on the table in front of you so that you know who you areaddressing at any point in this conversation.”Now, the judge doesn’t like that very much. In fact, a couple of my friends have been thrownout of court for doing that, which just goes to show that there is a major, major issue withthat particular piece of paper.But that’s what I will do, and in some cases judges can handle it and in some cases they can’t.Because they know that the person they are referring to is the person that is associated withthe bond that is sitting in front of them on that table.Now there are several things that you need to keep in place whilst you are operating in thatcourtroom, and I’m going to make a few suggestions.The first thing you need to do is to calm down. Really. This is going to be a very intense tenminutes, fifteen minutes, or whatever it might be, and you need to preserve your energy,make sure that you are in a state of mind that you can cope with the pressure, So justsuppress the need to rush. Don’t babble, you will really shoot yourself in the foot. Take adeep breath before you speak. Speak slowly and clearly.Slow Down.You need to display a peaceful confidence. You stand there, stand your ground, as a Man onthe Land in a private business venue, doing business. That’s all it is. It’s just business.Don’t repeat yourself. Ask a question, leave a little time for an answer, and if they refuse toanswer, get their silence on the record.Don’t argue or testify—you’ll play right into their hands and invite a contempt charge.Don’t say, “No,” or “But,” or explain or justify. When you testify, you are participating in anappearance, you’re confessing to your status as the debtor, as the defendant.Don’t be aggressive.Magistrate Jones:“What are you doing?! Step back! Get away from me!”Don’t start shouting at the judge and having him get all upset and leave the room—you’renot going to get your remedy that way.Don’t use language they don’t understand. A lot of this language going around the freedommovement at the moment, the patriot movement, these judges have no clue what you’retalking about. Make you conversation accessible and understandable for the judge in thecourt so that he can provide you with the remedy that you need.Always invite objections to your questions. “Does anyone object to what I just said?”Note the absence of objections, then get them on the record.Now, how about getting your evidence onto the record?I might use the other party to do that, I might ask the plaintiff, “Did your client receive thecopy of the notice of default on January the 2nd, 2008? If not, here’s a copy. Would you midreading that to me, please, so I can know that we are both seeing from the same page?”Or, I might say to the judge, “Sir, I believe you have a copy of the notice of default which wasfiled into the case under a notary seal on January the 3rd, 2008, would you mind pulling thatout, please, and just reading that to me so that I know we both have the same document?”Now if he then says,Magistrate Jones:“I’m not reading that into the record.”I might say,Timothy:“For on the record, why would you not read it into evidence, sir?Magistrate Jones:“That document’s not in my file, it’s disappeared.”Timothy:“Really, sir? Who else has access to that file? Was it stolen? Has a police report been filedregarding that incident, sir?”Now, if you cannot get them to read your evidence into the record, read it into the recordyourself, if necessary, calmly and lawyer-ly. If they try to talk over you, speak louder – makesure that you get that evidence on the record.What if you’re dealing with bonds, and he says,Magistrate Jones:“This promissory note is bogus – it’s nonsense, absolutely nonsense.”Timothy:“Am I to understand you’re claiming that a document recognised by a public official ishearsay? Is that your position? Are you suggesting then, sir, that the notary who issued thecertificate of default is in error, or is a liar, sir? For the record. Are you claiming this is not agenuine negotiable instrument?”Magistrate Jones:“It certainly seems to have a veneer of legality, but I’ve never seen anything like this before.”Timothy:“Well your own code says it is – UCC 3104, UCC 3604, and as this is an admiralty court, I canonly assume that the UCC is in good effect here…are you not aware of the statute that says ifyou decline payment, you are holding the liability? Or, judge, with all due respect, are youan expert in negotiable instruments?”Well, he has to say, ‘No,’ of course, and if he remains silent I would get that silence on therecord.Timothy:“Sir, let the record show that by your silence you admit that you are not an expert innegotiable instruments, but did you bring an expert with you? Do you have a Certificate ofProtest from treasury regarding that promissory note? Do you have a Notice of Dishonourform treasury, perhaps? Is there a defect in the instrument? Do you have any first-handknowledge of defect in the instrument? Let me have a look at that – oh, that’s odd, it doesn’tappear to have any markings on it – it hasn’t been processed or cancelled, has it? so you aregoing to claim it’s a bogus instrument when you haven’t even put it into the system tonegotiate. You are holding the liability, sir, and you’ve just confessed to misappropriation offunds.”Now remembering that we are there to pay to settle, close and to act honourably, you aregoing to get the odd contempt citation when you start playing by your rules on their court.Magistrate Jones:“One more word out of you, you little rapscallion and I will hold you in contempt of court.”So how do we deal with contempt?Well, the first thing I might ask is,Timothy:“What kind of contempt, sir, civil or criminal?”Magistrate Jones:“Why civil contempt, civil contempt…”Now, civil contempt depends upon a contract. Without a contract, now agreement forperformance exists.Timothy:“What is the controversy between us, sir, where is the contract requiring performance?Where is the claim? How am I in contempt of a contract, sir? Produce the contract and I willresolve this matter immediately. Bring it forth. An I in breach? Have I failed to perform onthat contract?”Magistrate Jones:“Criminal contempt, criminal contempt, I tell you, by Jove.”Criminal contempt requires an injured party and a claim. So I might say,Timothy:“Who’s making the claim? And where is the injured party? Are you making a claim, sir?”And you can also question the venue with regards to contempt,Timothy:“Sir, the law provides for two forms of criminal prosecution, one is under the common lawand one is under the admiralty, or military, jurisdiction; which do you presume you aregoing to charge me with?”Now, if he says ‘admiralty,’ which is highly unlikely, I might say, “I accept that charge sir,and I agree to pay it right now pursuant to public policy. Who has a pen and paper so I canwrite my bond?”If he says, ‘common law,’ which again is highly unlikely, where is the injured party? Where isthe affidavit of probably cause sworn by two witnesses with first-hand knowledge of thecrime? Do you have any of those things?”When the questioning gets tough, the judge might try to cut it off by saying,Magistrate Jones:“Ha! God’s teeth you nincompoop, I don’t have to answer your questions – now we’re nothere to answer your questions today – now how would you like to plead?”Timothy:“Is there some reason why you don’t want to answer relevant questions and would ratherhold me in contempt for asking them? What are you trying to hide here, sir? Is there somecriminal activity that needs disclosing? Are you aware that I have the right to question thiscourt’s authority or anything else I don’t understand, sir? Can you proceed without myunderstanding? Without making full disclosure to me of the law venue and theconsequences of my decisions here today?”The judges have been known to get quite aggressive when under the pressure of intensequestioning. And they have been known to lose it.Magistrate Jones:“Mr AntiTerrorist, I am warning you, I am going to rip your head off your shoulders andthrow you out of this court on your behind if you do not stop messing about. Now. Really.Let’s play this game properly by my rules or not at all.”Timothy:“Excuse me, sir, but I’m standing here shaking in my boots at your outburst, are you okay?You’re yelling at the top of your lungs and you’re face is red, you’re foaming at the mouth,you’re slamming the bench – are you having a physical problem or a mental problem, sir?I’m really concerned about your health. You need to call a recess and compose yourselfbecause the record shows that justice cannot be served here today. Or would you like torecuse yourself?”Magistrate Jones:“Now look here, stop wasting the court’s time – do you understand the charges you areunder here today?”Now, unless you’re ready to act like a creditor and pay those charges, I would say, “No, sir, Ido not understand, sir, am I obliged to understand those charges? Am I obliged to seize,grasp or comprehend them?”If I was a creditor, of course, and I was in there as a sovereign man, I would say, “Yes, sir, ofcourse I stand under those charges, where do I pay them? Let me get a pen.”Chances are, you’ll get railroaded, and the judge will issue an order of some sort, and thenyou can deal with it commercially afterwards if you study in the right places.But there is always a remedy, there is always a commercial remedy, and with regards tocommerce, your remedy comes after the fact. So when the police abuse you or your rights,you can then deal with that commercially afterwards by using the commercial lien process,and I highly recommend you look into that.Now the information I have given you in this broadcast is not exhaustive. I’m painting inbroad brushstrokes. But I recommend you look into Acceptance for Value – if a judge issuesyou an order, then give him a bill. Watch Robert Menard’s videos with regards to that, youcan have quite a lot of fun with that technology.There is a lot to learn. I am very clear that I am where I am in my understanding todaybecause of my teachers – Sam Kennedy, Winston Shrout, Jack Smith – to name but a few whoare paving the way in terms of developing this information and making it accessible for all ofus to use.There is a chap called Marc Stevens who wrote Adventures in legal Land, I highlyrecommend his work – he is very, very eloquent and very knowledgeable, and certainlyworth your time. – never giving you legal advice, of course, just empowering you.I would like to point out that there is a lot of misinformation out there too, and I highlyrecommend you develop a noise filter for all of this stuff, particularly when it comes to the1099 process. You need to look at what is being said by the authorities regarding thesematters. The treasury might put out a post or the IRS might put out a post, you need to learnto read that in a very particular way to see that sometimes they are actually giving you a clueas to how to perfect this process.Of course, the timid and the fearful will read it and immediately give up, and return to theslave mentality. But I urge you, develop your filter, and study carefully and follow peoplelike Robert Menard, read Mary Croft’s book, How I Clobbered Every Cash-ConfiscatoryBureaucratic so and so and so…and I would also start to look at the forums,thinkfreeforums.org is a good one, lots of information on there and lots of veryknowledgeable people on there who can help you. they also have a UK-specific section, infact they have a world-wide section on thinkfreeforums.org and you can pretty muchguarantee your country will be in there somewhere.Robert Menard’s new idea with regards to creating a society is also a very, very profoundone and certainly one that I would advocate, and I highly recommend you go to his sitewww.worldfreemansociety.org and if you go to his YouTube page, the channel name isMrMitee.I hope this information was useful to you and that you can use it in some way and that youwill keep studying and keep empowering yourself.Thanks for listening.HEO9 February 2009© MMIX TheAntiTerrorist & Velluminous Press

Download transcript of: standing in court

HEO

9 February 2009

TheAntiTerrorist on Dealing with the Police (25min)

KCartel — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 07:50:13 +0000

Are they the enemy?

Please pass on to your friends and associates. If you disagree with my message, please feel free to say so. lets get the conversation started.

The Oath that all Policemen and Policewomen swear in the UK (PCSOs etc do not swear an Oath) is known as the Attestation and it goes like this:
” I . . . . . of . . . . . do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the
Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding
fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.”

“Officer, for and on the record, there will be no need for force or violence, i will not resist arrest. However, you are obliged to note that I will be operating under protest and duress every step of the way. I reserve all of my rights at all times and waive none of my rights at any time for any cause or reason. I do not consent to this arrest, I do not consent to the taking of DNA or blood samples or fingerprints, and I do not consent to being placed on any database.”

The AntiTerrorist Hand book is available worldwide on all Amazon sites

UK: http://tinyurl.com/mwgmjo
US: http://tinyurl.com/mpauum

Email TheAntiTerrorist: theantiterrorist@hotmail.com

knowledgecartel.com» Secret Government Archives – KnowledgeCartel.com

Argentina’s Economic Collapse (110 min)

TheAntiTerrorist on Corporate Revenue Collection (10 min)

TheAntiTerrorist on Corporate Revenue Collection

TheAntiTerrorist on Romancing the DATA (31min)

TheAntiTerrorist on Playing to Win

﻿Playing to Win

TheAntiTerrorist on The Devil’s Eye (25min)

Statism is Dead (66min)

Are you a Sovereign Yet? (110min)

TheAntiTerrorist on Poisons for Profit (33min)

TheAntiterrorist on ‘Standing’ in Court (30min)

TheAntiTerrorist on Standing in Court

TheAntiTerrorist on Dealing with the Police (25min)

Playing to Win