Read the first paragraph carefully. Look at all the words used... and LOOK THEM UP. This is all that was needed. The rest is filler.

Lemme guess- it was the "belief or opinion of THE CROWN(amicus curiae), that he go for a psych-test..." ?

"Hello Judges Quarters": i love that. Basically you didnt know WHICH Judge/Justice you were going to get, but, you did know that you would eventually get ONE of them, so this NOTICE would ultimately get to the 'right one?' :)

Yes it is just like you gave them all the evidence to call you insane.:)

so ... the first paragraph was his notice to clarify that he is not subject to control by government and no commerce expected or implied, he is not a legal fiction. Is there any significance to using Canon law? Asservation � confirmation Private Ecclesiastical, Non Commercial Assumptive contract/agreement/covenant Private - Acts by individuals or corporations not subject to the direct control of government. Ecclesiastical - intended to include all those rules which govern ecclesiastical tribunals. Vide Law Canon. non commercial - refers to an activity or entity that does not in some sense involve commerce, Assumptive - Characterized by assumption; Taken for granted; assumed; Presumptuous; assuming. Contract - An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law Agreement - properly executed and legally binding contract; The writing or document embodying this contract. Covenant - formal sealed agreement or contract; A suit to recover damages for violation of such a contract.

I'm not understanding what you are saying...I looked up the definitions to see why that was enough to get his charges dropped...I dont see any of it as trying to be in the club..what am I missing?

the fact that I understand something doesn't mean clubhouse rules, it means that I can agree with or I'm clear on and accepting of what is being said....when I'm not understanding, then I am not in agreement or clear or accepting of what is being said..which is the case above :)

understand means accept!

then you are not comprehending

"im not understanding" means im accepting their jurisdiction?

"I do not understand, I do not stand under...."

"Step 2: Direct your case and do not let them proceed. Present NOTICE OF MISTAKE, and REMEMBER THE FUCKING QUESTIONS IT CONTAINS. If they do not answer these questions you object, and declare that unless the questions in your NOTICE OF MISTAKE are answered, you CAN NOT UNDERSTAND THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. Anything outside of this supports their position that you are �playing� their game, and thus it is presumed that you understand the rules. The only way to counter this is to declare that you CANNOT UNDERSTAND the rules without these questions being answered."

It looks like a Notice of mistake but in biblical language...

MORE MEAT LESS FILLER My intention by corresponding through this document is to clarify what is occurring in my situation regarding having any relationship with the court and any concerns therewith. I come under peaceful means and therefore do not wish to or have any want or need to battle or war with the court whatsoever. If it is directly required by the court, I can produce a Peace Bond to that effect in order to demonstrate my good faith and merit in whatever matter exist. I'm simply asking for an explanation to which person of title you the court is summoning to speak to? Since it is impossible for myself to be a person of title and I have never created such a person then how can I be linked to such a person? It is my understanding that a person can only appear on a document and therefore I would be committing a fraudulent act by attempting to represent such a person that I had no involvement in creating in the first place or have no permission to do so on behalf of. If there is any confusion regarding this topic, then I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part. That being said, I hope and pray that the court's purpose and intentions in these types of matters is to appropriately and truthfully guide people to make the proper decisions especially concerning the fact of trapping or entrapping themselves into unknowingly and falsely representing a person that they have no association with. I would think that nobody should be forced or threatened into an act that they have not committed or the intent to commit. Also I am not aware of the particular jurisdiction and/or law that the court conducts itself under, but for myself I can only recognize the law that was created and establish by God the Creator, which we as people are to follow by. It is my understanding that there is no law superior in standing then that of the Divine. If I am incorrect or uninformed in my analogy, then I would ask anyone to come forward and present and provide the truth to the contrary. The court in my estimations has taken the liberty of demanding from me that I provide my fingers for printing, which I feel is being conveyed to me under threat of reprisal where could lead to forcible confinement or worse if I choose not to follow the court's instructions. In good conscience it is very apparent that I cannot subdue any physical attributes that I possess in and on my body. By doing so I would be forfeiting that which I truly possess and that I must guard over for the sake of my health and welfare. So regrettably I obviously cannot submit to the court's demand. Where I may have stated before and wish to remind the court, I do not wish to have any sort of relationship with the court in any manner or shape whatsoever. I feel by doing so I would always be in fear that it would always fall one sided toward the court and I would be open to ridicule and eventually compromised in the end. I only believe in surrounding myself with those people who are truly righteous in faith and kindness. The court has not demonstrated to me that it is capable of conducting itself in such a manner at this time.

is the crown always the amicus curiae?