Excerpts from “It’s all about Venue” - by Kevin Hines
Ok, so I have offered up solutions to the problem of dealing with our “corporate” status. Well I’m not ashamed to admit that I was simply going on the best information I had at the time, and I WAS WRONG! Write down the date folks, so you can remember the day I said it. I WAS WRONG! I had to learn about the truth and its relationship to our supposed “status”, the ALL CAPS name and “jurisdiction”. It’s confusing to say the least.
So anyone who is attempting to claim that the “ALL CAPS NAME” is just a fiction is going down the wrong track. I never had much faith in that defense anyway. If that’s what you claim, then you are saying you are nothing more than a piece of paper or a fictional entity. This is not right. You are a man or a woman, not a fiction, a corporation, a trust or an estate, and it is not about “jurisdiction”. It’s about VENUE.
Now the truth;
The ALL CAPS name is simply a way of placing you “within” the federal territory. I.E. – “subject to the jurisdiction”. This does not mean you are a subject and it does not mean that jurisdiction has been established by them or surrendered by you. What it does mean is that they have simply insisted that you are “within” their territory and therefore “within” their “VENUE”.
You see? This is not about jurisdiction. It’s about “VENUE”. The ALL CAPS name is the man’s public name = territorial venue name = corporate name = commercial venue name = “their State” venue name, which is correct and required under the “commerce clause” and necessary for conducting congressionally regulate “commerce” across the territory and makes bonding and insuring necessary for officials or individuals “within” that “jurisdiction”. The ALL CAPS spelling simply identifies the man/woman/official as being in the PUBLIC VENUE and therefore “subject to their jurisdiction”. It’s about the VENUE, not the “jurisdiction”.
The mixed Upper and Lower case name is the man’s private name = birth name = common law venue name = “your state” venue name, which identifies you as a (non-Fourteenth Amendment), sovereign man who walks upon the soil over, (in charge of) a Republican form of government and therefore NOT “subject to their jurisdiction”. This identifies you as being in the private venue under common law. That is why this is not about your “STATUS”. It’s about VENUE.
Jurisdiction is just the word they use to delineate or describe their VENUE. That is why everyone keeps saying that the Corporate United States was created in 1871 and your “status” changed with the passing of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. Well they were partially right, but it’s not about “status” or even “jurisdiction”, it’s about the VENUE. If you look closely you will see that this is the first place anywhere in the Constitution where you see those words, “subject to the/their jurisdiction”. This is KEY as this IS where/when they changed your VENUE. All other arguments/points are MOOT! You’re either on the soil or in the territory. It’s a venue issue, not a status issue.
I believe however, that this was not enough for the government to secure “jurisdictional” venue. So the natural question is “when did I volunteer away my venue?” and the answer is simple; when you signed up to receive Social Security “benefits”, i.e. (privileges). With your original application you requested the designation of being a federal citizen, “within” the territory and therefore “subject to their jurisdiction” as recognized by the use of the ALL CAPS name.
So who needs a “Driver’s License”? Obviously, it is a man/woman who is in the PUBLIC VENUE and has voluntarily designated themselves as being “within” the federal territory. That’s why they require you to have an SSN to get a license. This is how they tax you for giving you the “privilege” of being “regulated”; it’s a venue issue.
If any application for recognition as a PUBLIC VENUE citizen has been filled out, signed by you and approved by “their State”, then you must live by the codes, rules and regulations of “their State”…unless you DECLARE that you are in the private venue. It’s a venue issue, not a rights issue.
You need to challenge the presumption of venue, not status. It’s true that a person can be a corporation or other fiction, but a person can also be a man or a woman. This is a difference with a distinction. It’s about the presumption of venue. A man’s obvious remedy is to declare that he is in the private venue, rather than being railroaded into the PUBLIC VENUE.
You unknowingly put yourself in this position by having requested to be a part of their venue with your signature on one or more applications to be part of the PUBLIC VENUE of the territory. In truth, the only Affidavit of Truth should be one that declares a private venue, nothing else.
So, know your venue. Declare your venue. Insist upon this in court. Refuse to enter a “plea”, (as in “please don’t hurt me”). If you don’t challenge the presumption of venue, you revert automatically to the PUBLIC VENUE.
“It’s all about venue”.
Thank you Melinda,
I'm sure that info will be very helpful to all.
If you didn't break the law Demur if it is in your State Revised Codes. Course if you are in common law Demur is CL. Don't let them deny it in the Rules of Procedures...Cause they will try. The RULES can't override the Statutes. I have already been down this road.
You have to Demur before you Plea. That is all there is too it... If you make a Plea you can not go back and Demur. You lost the right. Then tell them you challenge jurisdiction and they have to prove that before they go forward. (jurisdiction is one of the 3 elements of a Demur, standing and cause of action are the other 2)
One other thing they wil try to use territory/geographical boundaries to claim jurisdiction. It is NOT!!!!! city/county limits fall under VENUE.. Look it up, I have case filings that prove it. In their "territory" is VENUE only. not jurisdiction.
I know there are two kinds of jurisdiction person and subject matter. I have the case quotes they can not move forward without it. I want a better list of what defines those two lists WITHOUT a bunch of chit chat...Just give me the list......
Kevin did a good program on Angela's Talkshoe last night that went 3 1/2 hours of good information.
can you post the link versus us spending time searching? I am out of time...Thanks
You still don't have the correct picture. I suggest you Google: Charlie Sprinkle. He is great!
I also suggest you Google: Tim Turner Freedom Seminar 2009. This will teach you about a lot more than traveling. He has an excellent disclaimer document that he and others have used many times, and the judges (if they are concerned about their own estate) will simply get up and leave the courtroom, and not come back. That document was developed by someone who teaches international commerce laws.
It is true that JTT is in prison right now, but that is because of an uninformed jury, and a lying IRS, and action is in process to get him out. That is what happens when society is dumbed down, and doesn't even recognize when their rights are being violated, and thinks the IRS is constitutional, and benefits society.
Another excellent example is by Carl Miller. Google: Carl Miller Constitutional videos. There are 3 videos.
I'm not able to spend multiple numbers of hours researching everything Wayne,
However, I did spend some considerable time listening to Bill Thornton of The Nitty Gritty Law School speak on "courts of record" and how to insure you are bringing your court to the table when confronted by these issues in "whatever" court they try to bring you "in" to. Are you familiar with him? Have you listened to his version of things?
It does not differ much from others of the same ilk. One instructor will say file a complaint, the other will say file a claim. Some will say Demur, some will say challenge jurisdiction, but will not delineate exactly, word for word, how. Some will say file affidavits proving citizenship, others will tell you to simply claim you're a man, not a legal fiction or a corporate "Citizen". One will say change your status while the next will tell you that's hogwash and that it is not about status, but venue. Not one of them so far agrees on every detail. The truth always lies somewhere in between.
Pardon me if I seem a bit uninformed, but Bill Thornton says always talk only to the judge and always be polite, while you say fry them in hell and take their insurance bond from them so they will never see a courtroom ever again. Still others will say never be a defendant, but will not tell you how to avoid "Appearing" "in" their "court", while still showing up for your "hearing". It is all a bit much and I can sympathize with those who want real words to use point for point, in order, with complete line by line instructions on what to do when, XYZ happens.
So if you think that you have this all figured out, then YOU write the article and post it on my site page. I can broadcast it.
Thanks for the input.
Morton, you've done a great job right here in your second paragraph. As I said, I've covered it all over the years and I can't just "post it on your site". This stuff is a "game" and some are able to play it better than others because it takes practice and more practice.
Bill Thornton's stuff, people tell me is the closest to my stuff. Why, maybe because the Nitty Gritty Law School was started here in Chico by a guy named Bob Foster (who has passed away) who was then "pushing" Roger Elvick's teachings. I first leaned from Roger and Jean Keating in a Common Law course taught in Sacramento in 1982.
If someone tells you how to swing a bat, are you going to be able to get a hit off a professional pitcher? Probably not. Yet this is what people expect in the legal game. Just put in a demurer and you win! BULLSHIT.
Morton, In California, the penal code sections 1002 - 1012, explain PRECISELY how to due the demurrer process. At section 1005, it gives the ONLY grounds allowed for the demurrer, and there are 5.
That is about as specific as I can get, but when one gets in front of the judge, there must be an argument put forward. The argument will show how well you can "swing the bat", so to speak. Even the best hitters miss a pitch.
I have found that most people, including those who have been at this for a while, are unable to create a question. That could be because they have so much information, like that of which you write in your second paragraph, that they cannot create a question that the answer would move them forward in their understanding. Also most people have many false presumptions about the court system and procedure.
Sorry Zeke, but in regards to an article, I was talking to Wayne. I believe he is capable of putting together some cogent thoughts on paper. I wish he would write an article. It is always nice to have help. In regards to your "way", I'm sure you've done a lot of studying and probably know what you're talking about more than most.
That said, you sparked a long ago memory when you said Chico. I used to water-ski with the LaPoint brothers at Black Butte Reservoir. Ever heard of it? We all lived in Castro Valley, near Hayward. My cousins lived in Sacramento. I was born in Moreno Valley. March Air Base to be more specific. I'm in PA now, but I'm a California boy at heart; always will be.
Thank you for your input.
Yeah, I've been there a few times, it's about 30 miles due west of Chico. I was born on a navy base in the Mojave Desert, China Lake. Ever heard of it? lol Both the sidewinder and tomahawk missiles were developed there.
Yea real close to where I was born Zeke,
Same dessert, different base. Moreno Valley is in Riverside County. It was actually called Sunnymead when I was born.
I have written many times on it pertaining to UCCs, but now that I am using UBC, I like its concept much better. I will write an article on it in the future, after I get my papers submitted. Right now, I shouldn't even be taking the time to do this.