Randy Gaumond's Posts (3)

The Scam of Policing Exposed

Affidavit of Truth

I, ________________________________, Badge Number_______ , EIN___________ do hereby solemnly swear under the pains and penalties of perjury, that I am not now, nor will I ever engage in any kind, type or amount of fraud upon any man or woman either in the performance of my duties as a duly authorized government agent, as a quasi-government agent or any kind of agent, or while off duty.

I, _________________________________, Badge Number _______, EIN___________ also do solemnly swear under the pains and penalties of perjury, that I will not permit any other man or woman to engage in any kind, type or amount of fraud upon others at any time, if such knowledge is made known to me by any means possible.

I, _________________________________, Badge Number ________, EIN___________ do fully realize the seriousness of my statements made herein and will apprise my superiors, principals and other seniors of my knowledgeable actions at all times, following the legal precept that Notice to Principals is Notice to Agents and Notice to Agents is Notice to Principals.

I, ___________________________________, Badge Number ________, EIN__________ do hereby promise to abide by the Clean Hands Doctrine at all times while on duty and off duty, and the Void for Vagueness Doctrine as well. If these stipulations are not adhered to one hundred percent of the time, the charges of being a Road Agent fully apply at all times.

Read more…

Alleged Jurisdiction

The Scam of Alleged Jurisdiction


Jurisdiction. A term of comprehensive import embracing every kind of judicial action. It is the power of the court to decide a matter in controversy and presupposes the existence of a duly constituted court with control over the subject matter and the parties. Jurisdiction defines the powers of courts to inquire into facts, apply the law, make decisions, and declare judgment. The legal right by which judges exercise their authority. It exists when court has cognizance of class of cases involved, proper parties are present, and point to be decided is within powers of court. Power and authority of a court to hear and determine a judicial proceeding; and power to render particular judgment in question. The right and power of a court to adjudicate concerning the subject matter in a given case. The term may have different meanings in different contexts.

Areas of authority; the geographic area in which a court has power or types of cases it has power to hear.

Scope and extent of jurisdiction of federal courts is governed by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1251 et seq.

(Black's law Dictionary, 6th Ed, Abdg)


Just what are ALL of the presuppositions that are being made about the defendant that might possibly be the basis for inferring that jurisdiction actually exists over him or her? If we do not know with 100% certainty what they are, then how can we possibly proceed onward from that point? How can we have any amount of certainty that we are not being treated unfairly in the legal system? Are we to just leave our concerns at the courthouse steps and trust in a crooked judiciary to treat us fairly and honestly? That's quite a lot of trust to put in a system that has proven itself time and again to be exactly the opposite of those ideals.

There have been court cases where the so-called judges have refused to hear any arguments from the defendants about a lack of jurisdiction. One judge totally railroaded a man and threatened him with jail time if he didn't agree to stop badgering the so-called judge about his lack of jurisdiction in a case. This scum wrapped in a black robe would only say that he did have jurisdiction but offered up no proof of same. So it comes down to who has more guns and is more intimidating, the people who get sucked into the legal system or the ones who run the legal system for a profit? Apparently, no one has thought to demand an answer at the very beginning, to the question of exactly what silent judicial notice was being taken by the court and if it was valid to do so or not. Herein lies the rub, for without bona fide jurisdiction being firmly established at the VERY BEGINNING of any court procedure, all that comes later is just more fraud and lies built upon earlier fraud and lies. Where does it all end? Where does it all begin? Think about this long and hard, please.

If these so-called judges do in fact have a bona fide jurisdiction over the people, then why won't they just simply tell us up front where it comes from? Is it really that hard to say? Or, is it more a matter of that they don't want us to know the truth, that they have no lawful jurisdiction over us and never have? Lawful is NOT the same thing as legal, so please don't now confuse the two terms or think that they are equal. Would exposure of the facts then ruin their game of extracting time, wealth and property from the victims of the legal system?

There is this thing which is referred to as The Federal Zone, and it is a complete fraud, scam, artifice, which Americans have been made a victim of since 1940 with the passage of the Buck Act. We don't even have to characterize it as massive fraud (which it surely is) in order to vacate it. The reason why is because there is a maxim of law which states that fraud vitiates ALL that it comes into contact with. The fraud doesn't need to be thoroughly stirred into the mix of ingredients, it only needs to just touch it in the slightest degree or amount to nullify the entire thing. Why is that? It's because it's completely impossible to be able to measure in any way how much fraud is allowable and how much is too much. There is no weight scale, measuring stick, container or anything else that can measure out an acceptable amount of fraud consistently so that each man or woman receives their just amount, no more and no less. And once fraud has been shown to have occurred, then all bets are off. The alleged crime or breach of the alleged contract is vacated at the instant that any aspect of fraud on the part of the plaintiff has been exposed. It is as if it had never existed in the first place or ever occurred!! By what line of logic and reasoning can it be otherwise? It is because of the utter simplicity of fraud canceling everything which it contacts that so many people miss it entirely. It's right there out in the open, but no one sees it because they weren't taught how to recognize it. People aren't taught how to think in the public fool system.

Most people are taught to look only for the complexities in life and to ignore the things that are simple. Quite often, the simple truths in life seem to be the most powerful ones. Maybe that's why we have the saying about "out of the mouths of babes". Babies are usually seen to be simple, innocent things, not yet jaded or worldly, so they are more able to see what's right before them for what it is.

In the definition of jurisdiction, we see several words within it that are clues to the wise and wary. Wise to the fact that words have more than one meaning, and that the intent of what is written depends to a great degree upon which meaning of the words used is intended. This is why Voltaire said that if someone wanted to debate with him, that they would first have to define their terms. For how can there be a real debate, meaningful dialog, if all of the meanings of the terms are not in agreement? One is saying one thing, and the other party thinks that another thing is being meant. This would result in utter confusion and chaos. In mathematics and its sister subject logic, exact and precise definitions of each term are known and agreed upon and they are strictly adhered to at all times. If they are not, then no progress can be made. The need for such a strict confine for other subjects is not seen to be very great, but it surely is!! Is this perhaps a major reason for all of the unrest in the world? If it's not a major reason for so much chaos in the world, then what else can it be? As to the other point, we need to be wary enough to look for these things with probing questions that have been sharpened fine enough so as to pierce even the thickest of veils placed upon anything. The piercing of these veils of secrecy which hide things from our view is of the utmost importance. These lances touch that which others wish to remain untouched. The reason is because they derive some kind of profit from them being hidden from the rest of the world.

Who is able to decree how much fraud someone may commit and how much fraud we must endure? From where do they get that kind of power and authority? Who died and made THEM God?

Read more…

Achilles' Heel

The Achilles' Heel of EVERYTHING in the Universe


Yes, Dear Reader, there IS an Achilles' Heel to everything in the universe, and it has been sitting right out in the open all of this time, just waiting for us to see it. But few ever dared to even admit that it was there, let alone actually gaze upon it. It is the commission of a crime, whether intentional or not. Since no man or woman has any kind of a right to commit a crime of any amount, kind or nature against another, all that we need to do is expose the fact that such an action is being done, and it falls away from us. This is because no man or woman has an actual obligation to suffer under the crimes of another. If there is such an obligation, then it would be self negating, and not be a crime at all! It would just be the natural order of things for us to commit what are heinous acts upon others, and everyone would have no choice but to endure and suffer under those acts. But committing crimes upon others is NOT the natural order of life and the living of it, crimes are actions which harm others in some way, and some are far worse than others, but a crime of any magnitude is still a crime, and no matter how small some may think a certain crime is, no one has any duty to let it remain and hurt them to any degree. Crime is universally thought of as a bad thing, not a virtue to aspire to.

This concept of exposing crimes in order to deflect them away from us is not really new. But it was done in such meager amounts, that it was akin to not ever knowing about it at all. This idea has been acknowledged to exist in the legal system, but because the society at large has been dumbed down so much and not taught how to think logically and rationally, it just stayed in the background. Not really hidden in any shadows, per se, it was only that no one paid enough attention to see it, sort of like an animal that is camouflaged and blending in with the rest of the environment. Very few had a sharp enough eye to spot it!!

How do we expose crimes that are being committed against us by various actors both in and out of the legal system? We merely ask these actors if they are willing to go on an official record that they are NOT committing any amount or kind of crime against us! And then if they are shown to have been lying about it, that would then compound the seriousness of their other crimes! And once they have been exposed as a criminal, ALL of their pretended power and authority over us wanes, like the morning sun burning off a light fog. If there is some amount or type of crime that we are obligated to suffer under, where can we find the man or woman who decided such a thing, and where is its measure to make sure that we get only the prescribed amount in each case, no more and no less? Where are the records to be found which describe in detail what we need to know about that? Or is it that we are not supposed to know those things, because it would spoil the criminal activities of others?

When the road pirates of various uniforms and colors move in to commit crimes against us, who wields the power to stop them in their tracks? WE DO!! We have all of the power and authority we could ever need or want to have to stop them, and it comes from us being educated about their criminal nature and intents. Just because their paychecks depend upon them committing crimes against us, is no excuse to let them continue to do so! ALL of them need to be fired at once for malfeasance in office and sent to jails to pay for their crimes against humanity on a grand scale! The same goes for the other usurpers of the power of the People, such as lawyers, fake judges, court clerks, etc. There is no one other than ourselves who will slam the jail doors closed on these robbers and murderers, and we are not well organized enough yet to do such a thing, but what we can do, is this; educate others with this knowledge, and then just refuse to do any business with their criminal organizations until they all go bankrupt!! No one ever cried when a plague died out because it killed off too many of its hosts to spread any further, so too no one should lament the demise of the 100% corrupted legal system and its actors, as it has done the exact same thing! It has killed off too many of the hosts it needs to rob, cheat and steal from in order to survive. Its success was its own undoing!

When a sleazy member of the BAR tells a fake judge that if he makes a fair and honorable decision, as in the case of U.S. v. Robert C. Braun, "half of the prison doors in America will fly open", you know that we have passed the time for the legal system to be dismantled and thrown away a long time ago, and the actors and enablers of that system need to be made the new inmates for their crimes committed against humanity. If this is not a logical conclusion, then what is? That these criminals should just be allowed to roam free, ready to commit even more crimes against us? WE are the final arbiter of what is just and what is unjust, not some petty and vile man or woman in a black robe who is no better than thee or me, or anyone else when it comes to deciding the fate of those who were wronged in a totally corrupted scam we call the legal system. Who can say with a straight face that they have enough insight into the heart and mind of another to know what is just and what is not?

When these fake judges are paid by the State in which they operate their criminal enterprises and their wages come from the ones that they "find" guilty, how can they possibly be unbiased? Justice must satisfy the appearance of justice, and a fake judge taking a bribe in a case over which he or she is presiding does not give the appearance of justice! Isn't one third of a judgment going into a retirement account a bribe? If it is not, then what is it? Calling a theft of something an "unapproved taking" doesn't lessen the severity of the act. Calling a bribe a job reward does not make it any less of a bribe.

A VERY important aspect of the legal system, and one which can help us immensely in spreading this good news, is that a notice to a principal is notice to their agents, and a notice to the agents is a notice to their principals. If any man or woman acts in bad faith in the execution of the duties of their job, then they are guilty of a crime! And the way to remove any fake "good faith" argument that they may want to make, is to put them on Notice that their criminal activities are now known about and will not be tolerated! They already know, or at the least should know, that what they are doing is wrong, now we just need to put the icing on the cake and seal their fate!

None who sell various bogus papers and theories to others on how to beat the legal system with even more paperwork, can prove one word of the above wrong in any way. All that they do is tilt lances at windmills, make specious arguments, and enrich themselves off of the ignorance of those they sell their faulty wares to.

Read more…