Wirral In It Together

https://iaindavis.substack.com/p/the-dark-maga-gov-corp-technate?publication_id=1149422&utm_campaign=email-post-title&r=b9xiw&utm_medium=email

https://off-guardian.org/2025/03/05/skripal-seven/

https://corbettreport.substack.com/p/rearm-europe-new-world-next-week?publication_id=725827&utm_campaign=email-post-title&r=b9xiw&utm_medium=email

https://www.voltairenet.org/article221820.html

https://www.voltairenet.org/article221863.html

I am going to talk about the Bogus Court Orders as the whole legal system is based on the legal fraud scams used by bond equity profiteering alienating, human trafficking and child trafficking through the fraudulent “courts”. Courts are banks to administer securities and trade the bonds. The authentic court order needs to include the following:

1.  Courts own identified water marked paper,
2.  Wet ink court stamp on every page (plus on reverse of last page indicating a page missing).
3.  Wet ink date stamp, over all court stamps (different colour ink).
4.  The Clerks I.D. who created the order.
5.  Judge/Judges/Magistrate/Magistrates wet ink signature (signed within 2 inches of the written name).
Notes:
  – any court order should be created at court, so that it can be contested or corrected on sight,
  – any court order must be served (physically),
  – Bogus Court Orders are deliberately made by a proxy and to look like a bad unprofessional copy so that it can be put to you, that you made it, which is in accordance with Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 and Name in Capitals Frauds meaning legal only applies with consent another wise it is modern slavery.

On the record for the record every court case is assigned, by the court administrator, a U.S. Treasury Public Debt or Australia Treasury Public Debt number, placed onto the court document, including but not limited to traffic citations, after the unknowing participants in the case have received their copy of the same, but without the added monetary transformation of that instrument into a financial transaction, which is the definition of a securitization. Read Professor Adam J. Levitin’s Congressional Testimony on securitization. Are we aware that securitization is illegal? (http://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=1c7f57c0-a25e-4c04-80cc-9ad8e65e0bea).

All the Public Debt Number corresponds with the Case Number assigned to each case and is usually conveyed in codes quite undecipherable to the casual onlooker. These are the codes that the fed uses to convert the case into a fungible instrument depending on its worth and value as calculated since relief sought. If a prosecutor can put away a criminal for 5 years, that’s $31,500 per year X 5 = 157,500 per inmate as it costs $31,500.00 per year to house and feed each inmate. Imagine 2 million inmates based on current inmate population, that works out to $31,500 per year X 2,000,000 = $63,000,000,000.00 ($63 Billion per year for 2 million inmates). Imagine 63 billion in a private placement program with a fivefold return every 15 days! It is a pretty good return from our sweat equity, and this is done all as an uneven exchange.

All court cases should go as even exchange. Remember without the living man or woman you cannot create a birth certificate/trust/bond. The living man or woman always is the creditor, and the birth certificate is the surety, and the birth certificate is the debtor.

EVERY document bearing your wet ink signature/autograph is a contract instrument.

If you are “acting” in joinder to a dead legal person, it is a “legal” Admiralty Maritime contract, with a “signature”, made in your “public capacity”.

If you are “doing” as a living man or woman, it is a “lawful” Common Law contract, with your “autograph”, made in your “private capacity”.

Any contract signed by one party and autographed by the other is void, because a legal fiction cannot mix with a lawful fact. The parties to a contract must be of the same kind.

Maxim of Law:
Disparata non debent jungi.
Unequal things ought not to be joined.

NO written contract is enforceable if it is made without any element of a lawful contract:

1. Parties competent, of the age of consent, contract between legal or lawful entities.
2. Free and genuine consent, not obtained by fraud, deceit, coercion, or mistake.
3. Full disclosure, providing all material information that may influence a decision.
4. Sufficient consideration, something of value exchanged between the parties.
5. Certainty of terms and conditions, fixed and unable to be changed without agreement.
6. Meeting of the minds, when the parties recognise and understand their obligations.
7. Signatures or autographs, in wet ink, as recorded evidence of reciprocal consent.

Maxim of Law:
Non videntur qui errant consentire.
He who errs is not considered as consenting.

Contract Case Law:
“Failure to reveal the material facts of a license or any agreement is immediate grounds for estoppel.” Lo Bue v. Porazzo, 48 Cal.App.2d 82, 119, p.2d 346, 348.

“Waivers of fundamental Rights must be knowing, intentional, and voluntary acts, done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” U.S. v. Brady, 397 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970); U.S.v. O’Dell, 160 F.2d 304 (6th Cir. 1947)”.

Unconscionable “contract” – “One which no sensible man not under delusion, or duress, or in distress would make, and such as no honest and fair man would accept.” Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Noll, 115 Ind. App. 289, 58 N.E.2d 947, 949, 950.

“Party cannot be bound by contract that he has not made or authorized.” Alexander v. Bosworth (1915), 26 C.A. 589, 599, 147 P.607.

The fraudulently “presumed” quasi-contractus that binds the Declarant with the CITY/STATE agency, is void for fraud ab initio, since the de facto CITY/STATE cannot produce the material fact (consideration inducement) or the jurisdictional clause (who is subject to said statute). (SEE: Master / Servant [Employee] Relationship — C.J.S.) — “Personal, Private, Liberty”-

Since the “consideration” is the “life blood” of any agreement or quasi-agreement, (contractus) “…the absence of such from the record is a major manifestation of want of jurisdiction, since without evidence of consideration there can be no presumption of even a quasi-contractus. Such is the importance of a “consideration.” Reading R.R. Co. v. Johnson, 7 W & S (Pa.) 317

Case Law excerpts from – ‘NO law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile’

Maxim of Law:
Nihil tam naturale est quam eo genere quidque dissolvere quo colligatum est; ideo verborum obligatio verbis tollitur; nudi consensus obligatio contrario consensu dissolvitur. Nothing is so natural as to dissolve anything in the way in which it was bound together; therefore the obligation of words is taken away by words; the obligation of mere consent is dissolved by the contrary consent.

Your choice which way you want to handle it. Just DO NOT be the summoned name.No matter what they say and do, DO NOT participate as their PERSON Summoned.Stay neutral. Throw the PERSON under the bus.
Return their summons / paperwork (keep original) and write in wet ink the following…

Do not accept the benefits on offer.
Do not consent to appear for another entity summoned.
We invoke our inalienable rights, no plea for reasons of non assumpsit.

Return proof of deliver to sender (court) within 72 hours of receipt.

If you decide to turn up, stick with the scripts attached.

Okay, here’s the information with the addition of the meaning of servitude:

The terms “inalienable” and “unalienable” are often used interchangeably, but there is a subtle difference between them.

**Inalienable** is the preferred term used in modern American English, while **unalienable** is more commonly used in British English. Both words are derived from the Latin “inalienabilis,” which means “not to be alienated” or “not capable of being transferred or given away.”

**Inalienable** refers to rights or privileges that cannot be taken away or removed from a person, regardless of circumstances. These rights are inherent and inalienable because they are fundamental to human dignity and existence.

**Examples of inalienable rights:**

*   Freedom of speech
*   Right to life
*   Right to liberty
*   Right to privacy
*   Right to pursue happiness

**Unalienable**, on the other hand, emphasizes that these rights are not only inherent but also cannot be transferred or given away. This term suggests that the rights are inalienable because they are so fundamental to the individual’s existence that they cannot be surrendered or transferred to another entity.

**Examples of unalienable rights:**

*   The right to own property (e.g., a person cannot sell their right to life)
*   The right to freedom of assembly (e.g., a group cannot transfer their right to freedom of assembly to another entity)
*   The right to consent to marriage (e.g., a person cannot transfer their right to consent to marriage to another party)

**Servitude** is a state of being a servant or subject to someone or something, usually involving forced labor or severe restrictions on personal freedom. It represents the opposite of inalienable rights. It is often associated with slavery, indentured servitude, or other forms of involuntary labor, where an individual’s labor or services are owned by another person or entity, thereby denying the individual their inalienable rights such as liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Servitude is a violation of human rights.

In practice, the distinction between inalienable and unalienable is often blurred, and both terms are used interchangeably. However, when invoking these terms, it’s worth noting that inalienable implies a stronger sense of inherent rights, while unalienable emphasizes the idea that these rights cannot be transferred or given away.
In Common law, all individuals have “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It is important to note that the denial of these rights, through servitude or other means, is a fundamental injustice.

AFFIDAVIT OF FACT

COUNTERCLAIM TO THREAT OF DISCONNECTION or SUSPENSION ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE CESTUI QUE TRUST

I, (Your Full Name), a living man/woman, being of sound mind and capable of understanding the nature and consequences of these proceedings, hereby submit this Affidavit of Fact in opposition to the Cancellation or Suspension made in the name of the Cestui que trust.

1. Reservation of Rights: I assert my understanding of the common law as recognized by the Australian Corporations Act 2001 and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which provides for a remedy to reserve my rights under the common law. I have made a timely and explicit reservation of my rights under section 1-308 of the UCC, thereby preserving my rights under the common law.

2. Non-Consent: I hereby declare that I do not consent to these proceedings, refuse the offer of contract, and reject the artificial legal person created for the purpose of this account. I demand that the CORPORATION produce the bond details that will indemnify me against any harm caused by the actions of the CORPORATION employees or the parties involved in this matter.

3. Dismissal Demand: I hereby assert my common law rights and claim that the threat of cancellation or suspension issued in the name of the Cestui que trust is null and void, and I demand that it be settled persuant to the Bill of Exchange Act indorsement already received by you. I further claim that any further proceedings or actions taken by the CORPORATION will be in contravention of my rights under the UCC and the Australian CORPORATIONS ACT 2001.

4. Declaration: I, (Your Full Name), hereby declare that this Affidavit of Fact is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief, and I am prepared to verify this statement under oath.

PRIVATE NOTICE

To All Parties Concerned,

This notice serves to inform you that I, (Your Name), a living man/woman, hereby reserve all rights and privileges afforded to me under the Common Law and the Maxims of Law.

I hereby declare that any document bearing my wet ink autograph is a lawful contract instrument, made in my private capacity as a living man/woman, and not as a representative of any dead legal person or entity.

I will not be bound by any contract or agreement that is not made with full disclosure, free and genuine consent, and sufficient consideration. I will not be party to any contract that is void due to the mixing of a legal fiction with a lawful fact.

I invoke the Maxim of Law: Disparata non debent jungi (Unequal things ought not to be joined), and I will not be bound by any contract that does not meet the essential elements of a lawful contract, including:

1. Parties competent, of the age of consent, contracting between legal or lawful entities.
2. Free and genuine consent, not obtained by fraud, deceit, coercion, or mistake.
3. Full disclosure, providing all material information that may influence a decision.
4. Sufficient consideration, something of value exchanged between the parties.
5. Certainty of terms and conditions, fixed and unable to be changed without agreement.
6. Meeting of the minds, when the parties recognize and understand their obligations.
7. Signatures or autographs, in wet ink, as recorded evidence of reciprocal consent.

I hereby declare that any attempt to bind me to a contract or agreement that does not meet these essential elements is void and of no effect. I will not be bound by any contract that is unconscionable or that is made without my knowing, intentional, and voluntary consent.

I invoke the Maxim of Law: Non videntur qui errant consentire (He who errs is not considered as consenting), and I will not be bound by any contract or agreement that is made in error or under duress.

I hereby serve notice that I will not be bound by any contract or agreement that is not in accordance with the principles of law and equity. I reserve all rights and privileges afforded to me under the Common Law and will not be bound by any contract or agreement that is in conflict with my rights and freedoms as a living man/woman.

Notice to agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is notice to agent.
Disclaimer
The language utilised in this notice is intended for general understanding in the context of common
law English and should not be misconstrued as legal terminology, “doublespeak” or “legalese.” Any
interpretation or reliance on the content of this notice should occur within the framework of
everyday English language and common understanding.
Every Man is independent of all laws except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any
institution formed by his fellow Men without his consent. Cruden V Neale ZNC 338 May Term 1796.
General Guardian & Executor,
on behalf of Cestui Que Trust name
FIRST MIDDLE SURNAME,
Address of office
Date:
Trustee(s)
Corporation Name and ABN
Relevant Department]
Street Address
Sydney, NSW, Postcode

Dear To Whom It May Concern,
I, the living soul, First Middle, of the Family, the Principal Creditor, refer to the attached Court
Summons, Case Number or Name dated date and advise that your offer to assume jurisdiction,
and your instrument, have been accepted for value and consideration upon proof of claim, and
returned without dishonour within seventy two (72) hours.
I am writing in response to the court summons referenced above. I wish to decline any offer to
contract with respect to the presumed name associated with this matter, which I assert is merely a
fiction without mind or body, operating strictly as a Cestui Que Trust name.
It is my contention that the supposed beneficiary of this summons—identified by the presumed
name—holds no interest in acting as surety by joinder, nor does it imply consent. Consequently, I
waive all benefits associated with the offer presented, without prejudice and without recourse.
For clarity, I wish to formally assert a no-plea on the grounds of non Assumpsit. Furthermore, I
assert that the jurisdiction in this matter is void ab initio. The initial controversy was established
without reasonable articulation of suspicion and lacked demonstrable probable cause. As there is
no victim involved, I maintain that there is no crime. Therefore, any threats of enforcement or
demands for money under a resultant fictitious obligation amount to a civil claim for damages in
trespass. No one is immune from being litigated against so you know.
Additionally, I would like to outline the conditions of quiet acquiescence, tacit agreement, and
estoppel as they relate to this matter. I reserve all rights and assert that any actions taken by this
court without my explicit consent shall be considered in violation of my rights and shall not be
binding upon me.

Please consider this letter as my formal and final communication regarding the aforementioned
issues. I look forward to your acknowledgement of this position and the dissolution of any
obligations purportedly owed under the summoned name.
All rights reserved without prejudice, waiving none ever, in our true, lawful and private capacity as
beneficiary of the original inherent jurisdiction. Consent must be sought in all matters of Privity
where mutuality of interest occurs.
We look forward to your reply and anticipate a review of this matter.
For and on behalf of FIRST MIDDLE SURNAMETM
Yours honourably,
By:
BD&M No. & Registered: date
First Middle, of the house Surname,
Born Alive Date: date
Principal Creditor & Beneficiary

• END NOTICE **

Delete this blue text following before printing.
Your choice which way you want to handle it. Just DO NOT be the summoned name. No
matter what they say and do, DO NOT participate as their PERSON Summoned. Stay neutral. Throw the PERSON under the bus.
Return their summons / paperwork (keep original) and write in wet ink the following…
Do not accept the benefits on offer.
[Do not consent to appear for another entity summoned. – if applicable]

We invoke our inalienable rights, no plea for reason of non assumpsit.
By: Signature BD&M No. & Registration Date:
Principal Creditor
Date:
Return proof of deliver to sender (court) within 72 hours of receipt.
If you decide to turn up, stick with the scripts attached.

The Quick Four Sentence Method
This method, according to multiple sources, was used by a woman in Los Angeles at an initial appearance in an administrative court (no jury/no injured party) to close the “books” on the “charge”. When you close the case they leave you alone. The first sentence expressly declines consent (this prevents the presumption of consent); the second sentence declines the offer of contract (an administrative court is a dispute resolution service by contract); the third sentence declines to become surety (via the artificial legal person NAME debtor in the debt-money system); the fourth sentence demands a bond against harm (court officials hold insurance bonds which can be called upon to indemnify anyone they may damage).

First – “I do not consent to these proceedings.”
Second – “Your offer is not accepted.”
Third – “I do not consent to being surety for this case and these proceedings.”
Fourth – “I demand the bond be immediately brought forward, so I can see who will indemnify me if I am damaged.”

At this point, the Judge reportedly dismissed the case and told her to leave the court. Someone observing this method repeated it, and was also released. After the second case, the Judge told everyone to go home, and closed the court for the day, leaving the court.

If court officials expect someone to use this method, they will typically re-schedule the case to the end of the day so that others will not see this. Judges do not want this method known, and BAR attorneys will not and cannot do this for you. If you enter their court intending to do this, you must do it yourself as soon as possible. Do NOT let them distract and dissuade you because if you agree to engage in any issue they attempt to raise you are consenting to their jurisdiction, and you WILL lose. Keep it simple. Do not add anything. Say ONLY the four sentences. If necessary, repeat, repeat, repeat.

Memorize ALL four sentences, or keep a copy!

In Australia, as in many other jurisdictions, judicial officers such as judges, magistrates, and registrars enjoy a legal immunity that protects them from being sued for actions taken in the course of their judicial duties. This immunity is essential for the independence of the judiciary and ensures that judicial officers can perform their functions without fear of personal liability.

However, there are certain circumstances under which this immunity may not apply, resulting in a judicial officer potentially losing their immunity from being sued. Below are some reasons and examples:

### 1. Acting Outside Jurisdiction
   – Reason: If a judge or magistrate acts beyond their legal authority or jurisdiction, they may not be able to claim immunity.
   – Example: A judge makes a ruling in a matter that is completely unrelated to the court’s jurisdiction (e.g., a family court judge handling a criminal case without proper authority).

### 2. Failure to Follow Proper Procedures
   – Reason: If a judicial officer does not adhere to established legal procedures or principles, it may lead to personal liability.
   – Example: A magistrate fails to give a defendant the opportunity to be heard during a hearing, which could result in an appeal and potential claims for damages if the failure is found to violate the defendant’s rights.

### 3. Corruption or Misconduct
   – Reason: Engaging in corrupt practices or misconduct can strip a judicial officer of their immunity.
   – Example: A judge is found to have accepted bribes in exchange for favorable rulings. In such cases, affected parties may seek to hold the judge liable for their conduct.

### 4. Deliberate Abuse of Power
   – Reason: If a judicial officer intentionally abuses their position, they may lose immunity.
   – Example: A magistrate uses their position to intimidate or harass a party involved in a case or to further personal interests.

### 5. Non-Judicial Actions
   – Reason: Actions taken outside of their judicial capacity may not enjoy immunity.
   – Example: A judge engaging in personal activities that lead to a lawsuit (e.g., a personal dispute unrelated to their role as a judge).

### 6. Negligence Outside Judicial Functions
   – Reason: Conduct that involves negligence outside the scope of their judicial functions may expose a judicial officer to liability.
   – Example: A registrar failing to properly manage court schedules, resulting in significant consequences for the parties involved.

### 7. Discriminatory Actions
   – Reason: Engaging in discrimination can lead to a loss of immunity if it is proven that the actions were taken as a personal vendetta or outside the judicial role.
   – Example: A judge consistently rules against a particular group based solely on race or gender without legal justification.

### 8. Criminal Conduct
   – Reason: If a judge engages in criminal conduct, immunity will not protect them from criminal charges or related civil suits.
   – Example: A judge is involved in an illegal scheme, such as a drug trafficking operation, which leads to their prosecution.

### 9. Malicious Prosecution
   – Reason: If a judicial officer knowingly engages in malicious prosecution or abuse of process, they may lose immunity.
   – Example: A judge orders the prosecution of an individual without any legal basis, purely out of personal animosity.

### Conclusion
Judicial immunity is a fundamental principle designed to protect the independence of the judiciary, but it is not absolute. Actions taken outside the official role, misconduct, or abuse of power can lead to personal liability for judicial officers. Individuals wishing to pursue claims against a judge or magistrate must carefully consider the legal context and the specific circumstances that may lead to exceptions in immunity protections. Legal counsel should be sought for cases where this issue arises.