This type of engagement with the matrix is very toxic , as u yourself have written about. I wish you strength, as I know u have the courage. I've had a similar battle and I crumbled. My emotions were out of control. Interacting with an obtuse matrix was like breathing in poisonous gas. Godspeed Martin.
An irrevocable pure common law trust is a wise idea. Here's a good starting point -> Weiss's Concise Trustee Handbook. You might also be interested in the work of Alfred Adask on Trusts. Groundbreaking stuff.
Martin--You are brave, You are strong, You are wise and a shining light for the rest of us to stand up against this tyrannical evil that has permeated every level of our 'society'.
In the words of Teresa of Avila:
"You were created to be loved. You were created for everlasting life. Renew your mind about yourself so that the truth of your being can shine forth"
This, my friend, is precisely what you do daily ---it is and will continue to bear the fruit of Justice and Freedom...for all who seek the will of God! Keep trusting that you are loved, supported and protected!
It is evident that you see the issue clearly and are on the right track. However, your language is having no effect upon them. I want to see you be able to come to a real resolution here. I recently finished going through the Law for Mankind process and it has changed the way I approach the threats against me and my sovereignty. I strongly urge you to look into this as soon as possible. This is not BS, it is the real deal. You will learn how to get real results. Thank you for taking this seriously. All the best to you.
DO you have a friend who could "won" your car perhaps? Here in the US Martin, ,at least at lower court lever, you can do all this work for Magistrate court, have the judge basically make your closing argument and then . . rule in favor of the other side . . with *zero* explanation - they owe nothing, no insight, no hints or clues as to the thought (?) process. And we did have to pay an attorney . . . . I know you know . . it is not often now as it should be. God bless you in adhering to what is so right and true. Many blessings -
I knew they’d get uglier. I am concerned but fortunately I already have read the back of the book. It truly is going to get worse. I feel for you and pray for you. The 8,000 increase of losses of beautiful souls is without words. I know that you will be fine because Y-h has positioned you Himself.
The Magistrates’ Courts (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2021
As follows: in Rule 66
“
Request for information about a case
66B.—(1) This rule applies where anyone, including a member of the public or a reporter, requests information about a case.
(2) A person requesting information must—
(a)
ask the designated officer;
(b)
specify the information requested; and
(c)
pay any fee prescribed.
(3) The request—
(a)
may be made orally or in writing, and need not explain why the information is requested, if this rule requires the designated officer to supply that information; but
(b)
must be in writing, unless the court otherwise permits, and must explain why the information is requested, if this rule does not so require.
(4) Subject to paragraph (5), the designated officer must supply to the person making the request—
(a)
the date of a hearing in public;
(b)
in general terms, the subject of the proceedings;
(c)
the court’s decision at a hearing in public;
(d)
whether the case is under appeal;
(e)
the identity of—
(i)
the parties,
(ii)
the parties’ representatives, including their addresses, and
(iii)
the judge, magistrate or magistrates, or justices’ legal adviser by whom a decision at a hearing in public was made;
(f)
such other information about the case as is required by arrangements to which paragraph (6)(c) refers; and
(g)
details of any reporting or access restriction ordered by the court.
(5) The designated officer must not supply the information requested if—
(a)
the supply of that information is prohibited by a reporting restriction;
(b)
that information is the date of a hearing in public of which a party has yet to be notified;
(c)
that information concerns proceedings determined by the court without notice to—
(i)
a party to those proceedings,
And I would be grateful if the provisions of this legal obligation are taken into account when assessment is made of this matter and all due weight is given to compliance with the law on this occasion.
As the council have applied for costs with regards to this liability order then this brings within the purview of the law the calculation and approval of the said costs which have been agreed between the council and the court and therefore the identities of the officers are obliged to be disclosed under 66 4. e)
This type of engagement with the matrix is very toxic , as u yourself have written about. I wish you strength, as I know u have the courage. I've had a similar battle and I crumbled. My emotions were out of control. Interacting with an obtuse matrix was like breathing in poisonous gas. Godspeed Martin.
An irrevocable pure common law trust is a wise idea. Here's a good starting point -> Weiss's Concise Trustee Handbook. You might also be interested in the work of Alfred Adask on Trusts. Groundbreaking stuff.
🙏
Martin--You are brave, You are strong, You are wise and a shining light for the rest of us to stand up against this tyrannical evil that has permeated every level of our 'society'.
In the words of Teresa of Avila:
"You were created to be loved. You were created for everlasting life. Renew your mind about yourself so that the truth of your being can shine forth"
This, my friend, is precisely what you do daily ---it is and will continue to bear the fruit of Justice and Freedom...for all who seek the will of God! Keep trusting that you are loved, supported and protected!
It is evident that you see the issue clearly and are on the right track. However, your language is having no effect upon them. I want to see you be able to come to a real resolution here. I recently finished going through the Law for Mankind process and it has changed the way I approach the threats against me and my sovereignty. I strongly urge you to look into this as soon as possible. This is not BS, it is the real deal. You will learn how to get real results. Thank you for taking this seriously. All the best to you.
https://thesovereignsway.com/law-for-mankind-q-a-clinic/?link=5499
That tree looks like it has fought it's own battles .... yet it stands ....
You are a brave soul Martin, I applaud your determination and tenacity. You will prevail I am somehow quite sure!
Sending lots of prayers and positive thoughts! God’s Speed🙏❤️
I love your philosophy of hitting back harder, lawfully of course. Reminds of what Trump once said. Bullies are actually cowards inside.
You are awesome, Martin--keep up the good fight--from Kathi in Vermont, USA!
DO you have a friend who could "won" your car perhaps? Here in the US Martin, ,at least at lower court lever, you can do all this work for Magistrate court, have the judge basically make your closing argument and then . . rule in favor of the other side . . with *zero* explanation - they owe nothing, no insight, no hints or clues as to the thought (?) process. And we did have to pay an attorney . . . . I know you know . . it is not often now as it should be. God bless you in adhering to what is so right and true. Many blessings -
I meant "loan" not "won!" =:-\
I knew they’d get uglier. I am concerned but fortunately I already have read the back of the book. It truly is going to get worse. I feel for you and pray for you. The 8,000 increase of losses of beautiful souls is without words. I know that you will be fine because Y-h has positioned you Himself.
Use this to get their names:
The Magistrates’ Courts (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2021
As follows: in Rule 66
“
Request for information about a case
66B.—(1) This rule applies where anyone, including a member of the public or a reporter, requests information about a case.
(2) A person requesting information must—
(a)
ask the designated officer;
(b)
specify the information requested; and
(c)
pay any fee prescribed.
(3) The request—
(a)
may be made orally or in writing, and need not explain why the information is requested, if this rule requires the designated officer to supply that information; but
(b)
must be in writing, unless the court otherwise permits, and must explain why the information is requested, if this rule does not so require.
(4) Subject to paragraph (5), the designated officer must supply to the person making the request—
(a)
the date of a hearing in public;
(b)
in general terms, the subject of the proceedings;
(c)
the court’s decision at a hearing in public;
(d)
whether the case is under appeal;
(e)
the identity of—
(i)
the parties,
(ii)
the parties’ representatives, including their addresses, and
(iii)
the judge, magistrate or magistrates, or justices’ legal adviser by whom a decision at a hearing in public was made;
(f)
such other information about the case as is required by arrangements to which paragraph (6)(c) refers; and
(g)
details of any reporting or access restriction ordered by the court.
(5) The designated officer must not supply the information requested if—
(a)
the supply of that information is prohibited by a reporting restriction;
(b)
that information is the date of a hearing in public of which a party has yet to be notified;
(c)
that information concerns proceedings determined by the court without notice to—
(i)
a party to those proceedings,
And I would be grateful if the provisions of this legal obligation are taken into account when assessment is made of this matter and all due weight is given to compliance with the law on this occasion.
As the council have applied for costs with regards to this liability order then this brings within the purview of the law the calculation and approval of the said costs which have been agreed between the council and the court and therefore the identities of the officers are obliged to be disclosed under 66 4. e)