Ian Freeman of FTL arrested (11/14/08)

[thinkliberty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzxMakuIjtE

That is a pretty interesting video.  Using parking tickets to learn how the courts work sounded interesting.

[Guardian Knights]

You're full of shit.  Every traffic case in Indiana gets dismissed if you show up to court.  Your case wasn't dismissed because of the complexities of your stupid argument, it was dismissed because your officer isn't paid to show up to testify against you, so 99% of the time they don't show up.

Sir, I can assure you not every case is dismissed because the officer didn't show, the officer in my case was there. I am not here to fight with you good folks, as I stated in the post this is what I did...I have no reason to lie to you or anybody for that matter. They dismissed the case "Dismissal in the best interest of Indiana"
I talked to one of the public defenders afterward, seems that they did not want to deal with the Power of attorney...they had nowhere to go with it. I have been active in the freeman world for awhile now and most of the judges know me. I have always taken the approach of asking the right questions in the court, mates this is NOT about fighting...I do not wish to be in conflict with them...I just hold them to the same standers as they hold us. I would suggest that you watch Robert Menard, a good bloke with the right approach. The Guardian Knights are here in Indiana to help folks with court, foreclosures and other issues, we do not charge or ask for donations...just a group of people looking for peace and abundance. Once again I am NOT an attorney or a member of the BAR...We are just people helping people. which gives us that warm fuzzy feeling when they win. And mates we do win...lose too...but at least we do try.
As always
With love and respect to all
Chase..the new guy

[KBCraig]

Sir, I can assure you not every case is dismissed because the officer didn't show, the officer in my case was there. I am not here to fight with you good folks, as I stated in the post this is what I did...I have no reason to lie to you or anybody for that matter. They dismissed the case "Dismissal in the best interest of Indiana"
I talked to one of the public defenders afterward, seems that they did not want to deal with the Power of attorney...they had nowhere to go with it. I have been active in the freeman world for awhile now and most of the judges know me.

My best guess is that they knew you would clog up the system and stop them from collecting revenue. Dismissing "in the best interest of Indiana" means cutting you loose before you cost them more money.

[Guardian Knights]

I think Robert has some very good points in this video...see what you think,
Chase

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzxMakuIjtE&feature=related

[Guardian Knights]

This is Winston Shrout Habeas...I am hoping someone can fill it in and summit it to the Court for Ian...do it myself...however I am in Indiana...someone there is going to have to do it.
Chase



Habeas Petition for Writ

Winston Shrout
c/o Box 123
Anywhere, Utah
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT
ANYWHERE, UTAH

PETITION FOR WRIT FOR HABEAS CORPUS
In re:  RESTRAINT OF LIBERTY BY JOHN SMITH

WINSTON SHROUT, Petitioner
c/o Box 123, Anywhere, Utah
vs.
JOHN SMITH, Respondent
123 Main Str., Anywhere, Utah

Judge: _________________________  Case Number:  __________________
submitted by:  Winston Shrout, lawful man, Real Party in Interest
domicile:  Washington county, Utah state

Comes now Winston Shrout, lawful man and a Real Party in Interest in this instant matter, appearing specially under "restricted appearance" (Rule E 8 of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims) exercising his right to petition the general government for redress of grievance guaranteed by the Constitution for the United States, a remedy provided by the privilege of the extraordinary writ for habeas corpus, the Great Writ for Liberty, which is within the collective heritage of the people of the United States and England.  Petitioner asserts in fact that his liberty has and is now being restrained by John Smith, the "keeper of the key", d/b/a JOHN SMITH.  Winston Shrout has exhausted his administrative remedies in this matter, and there is no  plain, speedy or adequate in law remedy available.  The actions of John Smith, d/b/a JOHN SMITH, are ultra vires, in that John Smith is using legal procedures for unlawful ends.  JOHN SMITH is a fiction acting for profit and gain in the public and cannot reach parity with Winston Shrout, lawful man.  

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1.   Our Supreme Court for Utah has original cognizance of this matter, and is a court of general jurisdiction.  Fifth District Court, Anywhere, Utah, is a subordinate court of limited jurisdiction operating at the convenience of the Supreme Court for Utah.  Jurisdiction in this instant matter is guaranteed to the Fifth District Court by sufficiency of pleadings.  In the event the Fifth District Court is incompetent to issue the Great Writ, the matter will be taken to the Supreme Court supported by affidavit of suspension of the privilege of the Great Writ by the Fifth District Court.

2.   The Respondent, John Smith, d/b/a JOHN SMITH, whose residence is 123 Main Street, Anywhere, Utah, is within the cognizance of this court.

3.   The restraint of liberty by Respondent, is in fact an ongoing restraint against Petitioner within the jurisdiction and venue of this court as the tortuous acts of Respondent occur within Washington county, Utah state.


RESTRAINT OF LIBERTY

4.   Respondent is in fact slandering the commercial interests of Petitioner by publicly advertising false statements to the detriment of Petitioner.

5.   Respondent has in fact filed a colorable suit against the commercial interest of Petitioner, the Respondent having failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

6.   Respondent is in fact attempting a remedy of inland seizure having failure to protocols in admiralty law, and there is no other plain, speed, or adequate in law remedy available or under limited liability.


RESTRAINT OF LIBERTY  IS UNLAWFUL

7.   Respondent is in fact attempting under the limited liability of JOHN SMITH to convert a colorable fictional claim, an unregistered quasi-security, into a security interest in the tangibles of Petitioner.  Petitioner believes conversion of a security to be a felony.

8.   The actions of Respondent are unlawful in that Respondent cannot exert a "blue sky" remedy where there does not exist any cause of action and/or right of action in fact.  There is no right of lien in evidence hence there is no claim for relief available to Respondent in this instant matter.

9.   Respondent, who is re-presented in this matter by James Jones #1234, d/b/a JAMES JONES an attorney, is in bad faith with unclean hands [Rule 11 violation] for failure in equity for failure to exhaust administrative remedies before placing this matter before a tax-payer supported court in fraud [18 USC 4 misprision of felony and possible RICO scheme violations].


EXHAUSTION OF REMEDY

10.   Petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies and completed due process is this matter (see Exhibit A) and has an agreement with the Respondent to cease all litigation as per judgment in estoppel [Notary certification of non-response], estoppel in pais, collateral estoppel, res judicata, and stare decisis, et al.  Respondent has agreed to stop all tortuous activity against Petitioner, and Respondent is in contempt for his own agreement, and in contempt of the judgment in estoppel (Certificate of non-response) by the Notary.

11.   Respondent acts as a continuous tort feasor in contempt of his own agreement.

12.   Petitioner has no other plain, speedy, or adequate in law remedy available in this instant matter which is totally in limited liability and admiralty/maritime insurance doctrine.


CONCLUSION

13.   Petition knows of no other course of action in this instant matter except to issue a writ for habeas corpus to determine the nature and cause of Respondent's actions, if any there be in fact.

14.   This issue of writ for habeas corpus is fundamental to a collateral attack on the tortuous actions of Respondent, and for judicial review of the criminal acts of Respondent and the attorney for Respondent.

15.   NOTICE:  For this court, the Fifth District Court, to refuse to issue the Great Writ would be a suspension of the privilege of the writ, which is a refusal for due process to the Petitioner, giving rise to a Federal question and failure for due process, a duty and obligation for a tax-payer supported court.




I, Winston Shrout, lawful man Petitioner, on my own unlimited commercial liability, do affirm that I have read the above Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and do know the contents to be true, correct, and complete, and not misleading, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and do believe the above described acts to have been committed contrary to law.


____________________________                   ________
Winston Shrout, lawful Man                     date
The Authorized Representative


I, ________________________________ , a notary public residing in Washington county, Utah, do affirm that a man known to me as Winston Shrout appeared before me in his true character and did swear to the truthfulness of this Petition and did affix his signature to the above document on the _____ day of _______ month, 2004.


____________________________________             _______


seal

[Guardian Knights]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzxMakuIjtE

That is a pretty interesting video.  Using parking tickets to learn how the courts work sounded interesting.

G'day mate
Traffic court is a grand place to start your learning, it was for me...worse case you pay the fine...best case your dismissed and walk. Putting a Judge on his Oath during court...priceless!!!

[Guardian Knights]

Identity Hearing generic

John Henry Smith
123 Main
Seattle, Washington
________________________________________________________________________

Seattle District Court
King County, Washington
_______________________________________________________________________
STATE OF WASHINGTON         )
   Plaintiff            )   in Admiralty
Vs.                  )   Case # CR-03-439544-A
                  )
JOHN H SMITH            )   
   Defendant            )   PETITION IN THE NATURE OF
____________________________________)   A MOTION FOR AN IDENTITY
JOHN H SMITH            )   HEARING AND MOTION FOR
   Third Party Plaintiff         )   HEARING/ORAL ARGUMENTS
Vs.                  )
                  )   TO THE CLERK:  Please schedule
WILLIAM JONES            )   this hearing on the master calendar
   Third Party Defendant         )   and notice all parties of time/place
John Henry Smith, Third Party Interest   )   Date: _________ Time: _________
   Intervenor, a Real Party in Interest   )                  

PETITION IN THE NATURE OF A MOTION FOR AN IDENTITY HEARING AND MOTION FOR HEARING/ORAL ARGUMENTS

Note:  The Clerk of the Court is requested to schedule a hearing on this matter on the master calendar as it would be impossible to reach any agreements in this matter without the opportunity for oral arguments.


1.   This court is assuming the identity of the UNITED STATES vessel, JOHN H SMITH, to be in privity with John Henry Smith, the living, breathing, sentient being.

2.   The attorney, William Jones, acting as "accuser" and "prosecutor" has assumed and stolen the identity of the lawful man, John Henry Smith.

3.   William Jones, an attorney, actor in the Seattle District Court, has stolen and converted for profit and gain the private exemption of John Henry Smith.

4.   It appears that William Jones has created a tort upon John Henry Smith, making William Jones a continuous tort feasor.

5.   William Jones and other unknown tort feasors have stolen the identity of John Henry Smith, and have trespassed on his proprietary rights to the corporate JOHN H SMITH.

6.   William Jones and other unknown tort feasors have created a liability in the public mis-using JOHN H SMITH, and have created commercial slander against the proprietary rights and commercial affairs of John Henry Smith.

7.   William Jones and other unknown tort feasors have injured the proprietary rights of John Henry Smith in the corporate JOHN H SMITH by filling out and filing bonds referred to as SF-24 (Bid Bond), SF-25 (Performance Bond), and SF-25A (Payment Bond) through the Social Security and the GSA Office thus stealing the private exemption of John Henry Smith and converting for profit and gain.

8.   John Henry Smith has never agreed for William Jones to use his identity and private exemption for profit and gain.

9.   John Henry Smith has never given William Jones license.

CONCLUSION

10.   NOTICE:  This court on its own motion ought to dismiss all colorable accusations, groundless claims, and theft of identity.

11.   This court on its own motion ought to restore all stolen property including but not limited to all names, titles, and identities in this matter to John Henry Smith, a Real Party in Interest.

12.   This court is charged for the knowledge of the law.  The court has a duty and obligation to its creators, who are in fact the creditors for the UNITED STATES/STATE OF WASHINGTON, to never injure a man.   

13.   The Seattle District Court, a court of fiction operating as a corporate entity for profit and gain, a third party debt collector, can never reach parity with John Henry Smith, a man on the land.  The law cannot require impossibilities.



________________________________________             _________
John Henry Smith, the authorized representative for            date
   JOHN H SMITH™


                     ____________
                     rt. thumb print

[Guardian Knights]

Identity Hearing generic

John Henry Smith
123 Main
Seattle, Washington
________________________________________________________________________

Seattle District Court
King County, Washington
_______________________________________________________________________
STATE OF WASHINGTON         )
   Plaintiff            )   in Admiralty
Vs.                  )   Case # CR-03-439544-A
                  )
JOHN H SMITH            )   
   Defendant            )   PETITION IN THE NATURE OF
____________________________________)   A MOTION FOR AN IDENTITY
JOHN H SMITH            )   HEARING AND MOTION FOR
   Third Party Plaintiff         )   HEARING/ORAL ARGUMENTS
Vs.                  )
                  )   TO THE CLERK:  Please schedule
WILLIAM JONES            )   this hearing on the master calendar
   Third Party Defendant         )   and notice all parties of time/place
John Henry Smith, Third Party Interest   )   Date: _________ Time: _________
   Intervenor, a Real Party in Interest   )                  

PETITION IN THE NATURE OF A MOTION FOR AN IDENTITY HEARING AND MOTION FOR HEARING/ORAL ARGUMENTS

Note:  The Clerk of the Court is requested to schedule a hearing on this matter on the master calendar as it would be impossible to reach any agreements in this matter without the opportunity for oral arguments.


1.   This court is assuming the identity of the UNITED STATES vessel, JOHN H SMITH, to be in privity with John Henry Smith, the living, breathing, sentient being.

2.   The attorney, William Jones, acting as "accuser" and "prosecutor" has assumed and stolen the identity of the lawful man, John Henry Smith.

3.   William Jones, an attorney, actor in the Seattle District Court, has stolen and converted for profit and gain the private exemption of John Henry Smith.

4.   It appears that William Jones has created a tort upon John Henry Smith, making William Jones a continuous tort feasor.

5.   William Jones and other unknown tort feasors have stolen the identity of John Henry Smith, and have trespassed on his proprietary rights to the corporate JOHN H SMITH.

6.   William Jones and other unknown tort feasors have created a liability in the public mis-using JOHN H SMITH, and have created commercial slander against the proprietary rights and commercial affairs of John Henry Smith.

7.   William Jones and other unknown tort feasors have injured the proprietary rights of John Henry Smith in the corporate JOHN H SMITH by filling out and filing bonds referred to as SF-24 (Bid Bond), SF-25 (Performance Bond), and SF-25A (Payment Bond) through the Social Security and the GSA Office thus stealing the private exemption of John Henry Smith and converting for profit and gain.

8.   John Henry Smith has never agreed for William Jones to use his identity and private exemption for profit and gain.

9.   John Henry Smith has never given William Jones license.

CONCLUSION

10.   NOTICE:  This court on its own motion ought to dismiss all colorable accusations, groundless claims, and theft of identity.

11.   This court on its own motion ought to restore all stolen property including but not limited to all names, titles, and identities in this matter to John Henry Smith, a Real Party in Interest.

12.   This court is charged for the knowledge of the law.  The court has a duty and obligation to its creators, who are in fact the creditors for the UNITED STATES/STATE OF WASHINGTON, to never injure a man.   

13.   The Seattle District Court, a court of fiction operating as a corporate entity for profit and gain, a third party debt collector, can never reach parity with John Henry Smith, a man on the land.  The law cannot require impossibilities.



________________________________________             _________
John Henry Smith, the authorized representative for            date
   JOHN H SMITH™


                     ____________
                     rt. thumb print

[J’raxis 270145]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzxMakuIjtE

That is a pretty interesting video.  Using parking tickets to learn how the courts work sounded interesting.

This is similar to how NH-CLOG works, but we're not resorting to arcane legal conspiracy theories. We're just using their own specific statutes and administrative rules against them.