In latest research and feedback from member trying to figure out using "Pure Equity" as a remedy, we had a member show us this finding.
We can still get "Equity" in the system if you know how to implement the rules that currently exist. Not every case is winnable, but your chances are best if you go on offense, and you prepare well. There is no replacement or shortcut for not getting knowledgeable and holding others accountable for their wrongs against you. So to those seeking “Pure Equity” or Chancery courts as a remedy, think again. Yes you can do some status work to protect an attack, based on Equity concepts, but in reality it goes into practice when you go on the offense in their system by using Private Administrative processes such as filing a Notice and Demand, plus a criminal complaint, and often filing YOUR own suit, even if in their Equity/at Law court system. Beware trying to win in in their corrupt court as a defendant though, you must flip the scenario.
In reviewing this, we Noticed that Gibson draws upon Pomeroy in support hereof.
zFrom "Suits in Chancery":
SETTING FORTH THE PRINCIPLES, PLEADINGS, PRACTICE, PROOFS AND PROCESSES OF
THE JURISPRUDENCE OF EQUITY;
On page 11
§ 15. Equity Jurisprudence, Pleadings, and Practice, in Other States. – The jurisprudence of Equity, and its pleadings and practice prevail in all the States of the Union ; and in many of the States have completely supplanted the pleadings and practice of the common law. There is an opinion, somewhat prevalent, that there is no Equity jurisprudence in those States of the Union which have abolished Chancery Courts. This is a gross misconception. The doctrines, principles and remedies of the Chancery Court are in full force in every State ; and while, in many of the States, there are no separate Chancery Courts, in all of them the jurisprudence of Equity is, nevertheless, recognized and administered as fully as though special courts of Equity were in existence, in those States that have adopted the "code practice," or "reformed proced- ure," as it is variously termed, instead of the principles, pleadings, practice and remedies of the Chancery Court being abolished, in fact the common law practice pleadings and remedies have been abolished, or greatly conformed to those in Chancery.
Under the so-called ' code practice, ' the principal pleadings are: 1, The petition or complaint, which is identical with a bill in Chancery ; 2, A special demurrer, and 3, An answer, which are the same in form and substance as the like pleadings in Chancery. In short, those States that have adopted the ' code practice, ' have, in effect, by statute substituted the simple and pliable pleadings of Chancery for the stiff and cumbrous forms of the common law. And so, although in many of the States there are no separate Chancery Courts, yet in those very States the pleadings, practice and principles of Chancery are prevalent, and well nigh supreme, although to some extent under new names. 4 And in the Federal Courts the principles, pleading and practice of Equity remain wholly unimpaired.
33 1 Pom. Eq. Jur., §59. I Si Ibid, §§282-288.
SUMMARY THOUGHTS: In my own words (just an opinion, make your own conclusions) a proper pleading and case submitted can get you the same “effect” as many who seek Equity (State of Federal court). Thus, many of the processes used to avoid personam jurisdiction over the living man/woman still can and do work when used properly, when being drug in to defend something). If you learn to follow the proper rules of procedure, you can still achieve effectively the same results as “equity” seekers. Just don’t be lazy and most Patriots and Sovereigns tend to be. Few if any while playing defense, have ever gotten through the system of getting a judge to grant you a “chancery proceeding” because they also don’t know how, however understanding how they form a trust against you with their "charge" is a key, and is an equity concept.
However, in their public system one can get results if you go on offense. Thus, spending energy looking to the “chancery” proceeding as the conclusion alone is flawed. Yes when on the defense, stating your position as a living man and non-fiction is a key, in your documents and actions, and in what you put in to a court, and how you speak. But if you use the proper proceedings as taught in this Self Help Lawsuit Course at http://youarelaw.org/jd – you can get your “equity” by holding the parties and judge accountable, catching them on precedural errors, catching them exceeding their authority (subjecting public servants to Title 18 USC criminal charges), and by going on offense (counterclaim) often.
Our membership direction these days is to put them on Legal Notice the right way, and follow through with a practical suit and/or criminal complaint (when public servants violate various aspect of Title 18 USC), as your best way to deal with legal attacks (notice we didn’t say “Defend” yourself). Only Defending yourself, merges the man and the NAME, and grants all at law jurisdiction and you lose 98% of the time that way. There is a better way.
Thus, going on offense is essential….a Notice and Demand, followed by criminal complaints if applicable, and a 3 step administrative process are key, and simpler than focusing on learning Equity alone. THEN you have exhausted administrative remedies (ie: the private), and established a cause of action to file a public complaint or action.
This is the same roadmap for virtually ANY situation. After all it’s what they use against you, and you just go along voluntarily when it is you who are one of the people who is supposed to be protected by law FROM these public servants and bar members. But we do perish for or lack of knowledge and laziness. They count on it.
Again to prepare your arsenal, it is a good foundation ot study this course completely first – Self Help Lawsuit Course at http://youarelaw.org/jd