Legal Evil

     When it comes to going into a courtroom in the "United States," nothing could be more dangerous for anyone who is participating in any legal proceeding.  It is my view, after my own experience and watching others, that the "justice" system in the "United States" is nothing but a farce and it is extremely dangerous.  The justice system is Satanic to the core and it is completely unusable when attempting to get any remedy, especially in child custody proceedings.  As many of you probably know by now, I've been following the baby Holm case along with other mothers and fathers who have had their children taken from them.  The common denominator is the fact that there is usually no probable cause to take the children.  And even worse, many times the children die or are severely injured in foster or adoptive care.  In addition, in the Baby Holm case, the only reason the State of Alabama doesn't give this family relief is that they are probably involved in child trafficking, Satanic sexual abuse, selling body parts, collecting money from the federal "government," and supplying the body parts for cannibalism.  Anyone who is working for "law enforcement" and in the legal system is participating in sorcery which is of the devil.  It is a sick and twisted system, and it should be avoided.  I'm going to list some of the things that have been done to me and others and using the legal system is very evil and a complete waste of time.

Two kinds of law
     There is the natural law which the God who created the heavens and the earth and then there is man-made law.  Man-made laws are only valid if they conform to the natural law.  While kidnapping is unlawful in the natural law, it is also "illegal" in the man-made version.  No man is subject to any man-made law unless it conforms to the natural law which all of us are subject to whether we like it or not.  And when we break the natural law, we always get paid back for the transgression.
     Suppose the US Congress decided to pass a law that outlawed the force of gravity.  That won't hold any authority because we have gravity as a part of the natural order and there's no sense in trying to alter it.  But since Congress is a demonic organization, there is always a chance that they might pass something just as stupid.
     The knowledge of the natural is present in all of us.  However, it can be suppressed by false information, lies, and just not taking the time to think through an issue using the facts.  The most difficult question one can ask in a courtroom is this: "What facts do you have that your codes apply to me?"  I have never heard anyone from the government answer this question.  The reason is that they have no facts.  They use assumptions and presumptions and will steamroll over a defendant just like in the old Star Chamber courts of England.  In these courts, a man would have to prove that he didn't do what he is accused of doing.  That is almost impossible to defend.  I was actually able to do it but the judge simply withheld exculpatory (evidence in the defendant's favor) evidence and then proceed to a conviction.  After experiencing this myself, I can say that these courts should be abolished along with the government that supports them.
     The man-made laws are much more difficult to understand because they redefine words to say one thing when something else is intended.  Just the definition of the word "person" can put you on the merry-go-round for hours.  No sane man would ever spend the time to understand it, but I actually have read these codes over and over on the federal level, and they are unintelligible.
     And God help you if you make an intelligent statement in the courtroom as it will be objected to by the judge or prosecutor as being frivolous; having no merit.

Swearing Oaths
     If there is a one-way ticket to Hell, swearing oaths is the primary way to get that done.  I have written extensively on this blog about the swearing of oaths.  If you which to see these articles, just put "oath-taking" in the search field of my blog and you should get a complete list.  I'll put a link here of the article that alerted me to the dangers of oath-taking.  http://verydumbgovernment.blogspot.com/2014/11/understanding-jurisdiction.html

The legal system uses bad English grammar 
     When presented with any legal paperwork, you will find all of the parties names are written in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.  However, in the body of the court writing the name will be properly written.  i.e. John Doe but in the header at the top of the document it will be rendered JOHN DOE.  There are numerous reasons for this and I think the best explanation came to me from a fellow inmate who stated that the ALL CAPITAL LETTERS name is a trust or an artificial entity, and the John Doe becomes the grantor of the trust.  It may also be that the ALL CAPS LETTERS is the trust and the John Doe steps in to be surety for the trust.  If you look on your driver's license, you'll see that your real name is in ALL CAPS.  However, most people can't deal with this kind of nonsense but they use the ALL CAPS for a reason.  As we will see later, this may be used for a set up to trick someone into "volunteering" for the court to give them the shaft.
     Regardless of the reason for the ALL CAPS, it is important to know that you really don't know what they are saying in the document.  It is unintelligible and it should be treated as such.  It is the improper use of the English language and if they want to communicate something, then they must use proper English.  This is why the legal system is simply full of shit and should never be used.  It is an example of what not to do.  When any government official starts to communicate with you with ALL CAPS you really don't know the proper context of that communication and it should be always rejected; or at the very least, noted.
     After being caught driving without my headlights turned on, a cop stopped me and gave me a ticket.  I went into court, and when the judge called my name, I immediately asked this question: "How does the vehicle code apply to me?"  The judge could not answer the question, even though I had an obvious violation of the code.  Any idiot would know that it isn't safe to drive at night without headlights.  The judge entered a "not guilty" plea and I returned in 30 days for the trial.  Then the judge said: "Mr. Thompson, I called Officer XXXX and told him not to come into the courtroom, you are free to go. This is your lucky day."  These courts must know that they are a fraud, and they would rather let me go than have to go through a trial that they might lose.  So, the facts question is always important.
     It is one thing to violate a code, but if it doesn't apply to you then why bother with it?  Not all of the codes apply to everyone so then the government must prove that the codes apply.  I've had them tell me that "the codes apply because the codes apply."  This is a nonsense answer but this is how they roll and it is truly pathetic.

Word games
     The codes play games with the meanings of words.  If I had to go into a courtroom today, I'd make the prosecutor define and explain the usage of every word in their complaint.  I would also try to get them to explain not only the definitions of the words but also to explain the proper context of any "law" that would apply to me.  I've found that the term "United States" has over 25 different definitions in the United States codes.  Which one are we using today?  The codes are nothing more than demonic claptrap and no one should ever read them.  But if you find that you have to read these codes, make sure you read the definitions first before plowing into the land of poppycock.

What is a charge?
     When you are at an arraignment hearing, you will be asked: "Do you understand the charges?"  No one is able to answer one way or the other.  And the reason is that no one really knows the proper context of the writings of the paperwork.  There are several definitions of the legal term "charge" so it is important to know the proper context.  It could mean an accusation or it could also mean that it is some form of a financial transaction.  Either way, the legal document is written in flawed English and it is unusable.  If I am in this situation, I always answer the "do you understand?" question with "no."  Anytime a judge or a government official asks you this question unless you really know what you are doing, I would always answer with "no."  I believe that this question is a trap or an excuse to trap people in their jurisdiction.  However, even then, the court either has jurisdiction or it doesn't.

Sanitizing of court transcripts
     This has actually happened to me and after talking with other victims, I found that this is a commonly used method to hide the evil of the court system.  I could hardly believe it when I had a federal tax case.  When the "judge" asked me if I understood, I said "no."  However, when I received the transcript afterward, I found that they changed it to say: "Yes, sir."  I did not say "yes sir."  Thus, you always need to take an audio recorder into the courtroom.

Use of nitrous in the federal courtroom
     I had a friend of Irwin Schiff's tell me that when they were in federal court, there was that sweet smell of nitris in the air.  It is a gas used by dentists to sedate the patient.  About 8 years later, I found myself in another federal court in Idaho and sure enough, I also smelled it. I asked the defendant's wife if she smelled what I'm smelling and she said yes.   I think the idea here is to slow down the defendant so that they make mistakes in their trial and then they lose.  Would the federal government or courts do such a thing?  I think they would.  While I was breathing this crap, I did fall asleep in the courtroom.  The judge got pissed.  I'm not sure if it was the nitrous or if it was that the prosecution's case was so boring that I nodded off in the peanut gallery in the courtroom.

Withholding of exculpatory evidence
     Exculpatory evidence is evidence that is in favor of the defendant.  In my case, the judge withheld it from the jury.  This is also done in child custody cases because the kidnapping of children is routinely done by evil agencies called Child Protective Services.  Even if the mother and father have done nothing wrong, the judge will usually withhold the evidence and continue on with the kidnapping.  This has been done to the Holm family in the "State of Alabama."  Rarely is the court system going to support the mother and the father unless there is a lot of publicity on the case.  This is why making the evil of these agencies more public thus holding the judges more accountable.     

Lack of proven authority
     Anytime someone is accused of something, the accuser must present the facts that show that some law has been violated.  One of the major elements of a crime is that the accuser must present evidence that their codes, rules, statutes, or regulations that apply to the defendant.  When this question is asked in an open courtroom, their case almost always falls apart.  What facts do you have that shows that your codes apply to me?  
     The codes aren't even law as they are only prima facie (evidence on its face)evidence of the law.  The federal codes are a completely twisted system of bullshit that even most attorneys don't understand, and if they actually understand what's going on they are then completely without morals.
The way I understand it, the Congress passes laws which are called "statutes."  When they are passed, they go into the Federal Register.  Then, the Law Revision Council writes the codes to meet the intent of the statute and then the codes are published into subject matter Chapters.  Of course, it gets more twisted because any code without an underlying statute is non positive law.  A law with an underlying statute is called positive law.  Then there is competent evidence of the law, which would be a statute.  There is also legal evidence of the law of which there would be the statute and the code, and then prima facie evidence of the law which would only be a code with or without an underlying statute.
     I could go on for hours with this, but it would get too boring, but the reader should have a good idea that what is going on in the courtroom is demonic and twisted.

How they screw the defendant in the courts
     It is certainly possible to violate their codes.  However, the big question that is overlooked is this: What facts do you have that the codes apply to me?  The accuser, usually the government, doesn't have any facts that show that these laws apply to any man or woman.  They apply to "persons."  Just ask the court if you are a "person" as defined in the codes.  They probably won't answer that because the term "person" could mean a corporation, a trust, an individual (which means a nonresident alien),      They will usually refer to the government as "the Government."  Of course, this is rotten English as the term "Government" becomes a proper noun as the rules of the English grammar shows it to be a proper noun of which the meaning is hidden.  A legal system like this needs to be abolished.  In order to understand their stupid laws, you would have to read all of the codes, find out if there are underlying statutes, and then completely understand the regulations.  If there are no regulations, then the standing of the code may be in question.
     There's more.  In the instance of regulations such as the IRS code, most of the regulations for the income tax are in Title 27 which is ATF.  When I asked an IRS attorney about this, he said: "Next question."  The Secretary of the Treasury in the tax code is the Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico.
     I call people who study this stuff: code pukers.  Some of them are really good at it, and unfortunately, I'm one of them.  If you are going to use them, you have to understand the definitions of common words which they put into terms.  A friend of mine, Jack Cohen, actually read the IRS code through about three times.  The judge said that anyone who would read that through three times would have to be insane.  But at the time, that was a part of the defense.  I don't like to code puker but I can do it if I need to.

Judges and attorneys give the defendant enough rope to hang themselves
     When you answer the question: "Do you understand?", the judge is asking it you to put your head in the noose and hang yourself.  You're better off not even saying anything.  In fact, when any govtard asks you a question, you should simply shut up.  The reason for this is that your words will be turned in to something other that what you intended and then they will use it as an excuse to persecute you.  Don't give them that opening.  Anytime you hear a judge say: "Do you understand..." just know that he is getting you ready to hang yourself.
     
Should I get an attorney?
     Attorneys have sworn their souls to the Devil by taking oaths which are a violation of the commandment of taking the Lord's name in vain.  Remember, the prosecutor is your enemy, the judge is your enemy, and the defense attorney is your enemy spy.  I see better results without attorneys as they have a monopoly on the legal system which is totally corrupted and they will do anything to protect their honey-pot.  Remember, according to the original 13th amendment, which is another story in itself,  states that anyone with a title of nobility shall cease to be a citizen of the United States.

The natural law is easier to use
     Since the natural law is the order which God established, that is all that needs to be understood in order to have a successful society.  Our problem is our toleration of evil government and evil religion.  It is my opinion, that these two items are the downfall of modern societies; Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and Hindu.  These religions have the most people and most of the "believers" suffer under the demonic system of communism.  Remember, the Jews established communism in the world and it is this system of the Devil that ruins lives.  It is best to stay away from these two things and live by the natural law which God created.

Walter Allen Thompson has a new book called Natural Law: The True Supreme Law of the Land