Posted by Charles Pixley on September 22, 1998 at 15:51:18:
In Reply to: for Paul Mitchell: "the discussion on point"? posted by KatNip on September 21, 1998 at 23:12:18:
Declaration development forum
Bcc: to Phil, Niki and Peter Jon at http://members.aol.com/rommellaw, and
Paul Andrew Mitchell and forum participants at:
http://www.supremelaw.com/wwwboard/index.html
The affidavit is a sworn document and is a willful,
premeditated violation of the Royal Law found @ MATT 5: 33-37,
2nd Witness @ JAMES 5:12.
Okay, so many have added such valuable input, is the following ready to stand or fly as
it were?
***
Declaration Notice
Charles Raymond, born of diplomatic representatives by hereditary succession of the
Kingdom of Heaven hereby declare:
I declare the property, rights, privileges and immunities granted to Me and My heirs by
hereditary succession bowing down only to Our Father, also known as Shiva,
Maheshwara, The Destroyer, The Knower, Allah, Y'hw'h, the Creator and sovereign
ruler of the heavens and the earth and all that is in them, In the Name of God, Most
Gracious and Most Merciful, Light, Truth, Love, Beauty, Consciousness, prosperity and
bliss.
Yes, let it be known that I and my heirs in succession do claim sovereign immunity for
debts and penalties incurred and imposed by execution of any adhesion or
unconscionable instrument, contract or deed enacted by any entity, government or
corporation.
Further I declare not.
Charles Raymond; Pixley.
Verified this nineteenth day of the ninth month of the 33rd year of Siva Kalpa, nineteen
hundred and ninety eight years after death of Jesus Christ.
First Middle; Last name UCC 1-207
(See Black's Law Dictionary, 1990, (ISBN 0-314-76271-X), Siva Kalpa,
(copies available from Me upon request) and The Holy Bible for the definition of all
words and phrases used in this notice.)
This notice is filed with the office of the Monroe county clerk, in Rochester, New York
state and it is posted for public viewing at: http://www.supremelaw.com/
Posted by Patrick Henry on September 21, 1998 at 15:20:19:
In Reply to: Verifications under penalty of perjury posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell,
B.A., M.S. on September 20, 1998 at 19:52:52:
According to extant legal definitions, you are technically correct. However, it has been
my experience that most jurisdictions have bastardized the meaning of word affirmation,
and have made it synonymous with "sworn oath." I therefore avoid like a plague the use
of the word affidavit. I usually "declare," "certify," or "verify" since those terms do not
yet appear to be tainted.
I have caused consternation in more than one court when I or an individual I was
coaching have refused to take an oath or affirmation. One court recessed for twenty
minutes while the judge looked up the law to see if "he could accept" my declaration in
lieu of an oath or affirmation. I told him he didn't have a choice, since the Ninth Circuit
ruled in Gordon v Idaho that the courts must accept whatever form is most binding upon
the conscious of the witness.
I generally use the following or similar wording: "I, Patrick Henry, under judgment of
Yahewh's Law, declare the following to be the truth as I understand it." If I am in a
forum which absolutely requires it, I extend it to say "... under judgment of Yahweh's
Law, and subject to the penalty of perjury, ...".