Hope For Justice Workshops
Yes, There is a REAL Hope For Justice
Hope For Justice is a workshop series that explores the idea, and provides the evidence, that there are two different courts in British Columbia (and all common law jurisdictions). Our understanding of how to communicate with, and how to administratively complain to “the system” and make common law claims, will help keep courts, police, public servants, governments and corporations accountable to restore balance to our society.
We begin reviewing multiple court cases, transcripts, personal witness testimony of court events and the history of the court system in B.C. which together create a compelling case that common law courts are alive, well and little used in B.C. and probably all common law jurisdictions.
I’ve been through the H4J: In Action course twice now, and am now working through the H4J Do Common Law Courts Exist? material… just awesome…Warmest Regards – KI
One of the key pre-trial and trials that dramatically demonstrated the apparent existence and operation of a common law court is through understanding ALL of the events and legal games that occurred before, during and after the first trial of Russ Porisky in Chilliwack and Abbotsford, British Columbia during 1999/2000.
NOTE: During Porisky’s first trial in 1999/2000 he successfully utilized “natural person” status as demonstrated in fully explored in Hope For Justice 1 – Common Law Courts Exist course. Don’t believe half truths and rumours, get the WHOLE story here.
Porisky’s recent second, subsequent trial, on tax evasion charges in 2011/2012, he never raised nor utilized “natural person” as a position prior to trial. He accepted the courts jurisdiction over him as the taxpayer and argued ITA interpretations…. a completely different approach from the first trial on different charges.
The first trial he was successfully acquitted once the judge “made up” a technicality to acquit on. The second trial ended with a conviction and jail time. Maybe its a good idea to REALLY study what happened the first time and not listen to rumours or half truths about that first trial? For the WHOLE story study Hope For Justice, its free to go access, for private-person.com members.
(June 2014 UPDATE – Russ had an appeal of his conviction heard Oct. 31, 2013, decision took until April 2014 where the original trial was voided and a new trial ordered. The technical reason for the decision was a 2-1 split decision that was very weak in my opinion. http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/14/01/2014BCCA0146.htm )
After We Understand a Common Law Court Exists Then What?
After studying the idea that justice really may be found in common law courts, we need to understand how to properly address the legal processes that we are faced with everyday that move us out of common law into another type of law.
The follow up course Hope For Justice: In Action explores the ways we are being communicated to and tricked into abandoning the common law. We need to understand how to interpret what is happening and how to respond appropriately.
The final course Hope For Justice: Your Complaint Is Their Restraint explores the legal and operational idea that we as individuals are responsible for holding public servants, officials and corporations accountable. We can only do that if we realize that we have the power, the right, the duty and the process to do so effectively.
1. Hope For Justice – Do Common Law Courts Exist? (H4J:1)
Getting to the point of understanding that common law courts exist and how to access the common law courts is the reason this first course was created. We attempt to connect various events in many court cases in a way that makes sense, provides evidence for the basic premise and encourage the hope and demonstrate that there is an active, honourable common law court system that we can access, where real honour and justice may be found.
You will come to understand that:
- common law courts do exist and “they” are bound to utilize them when we act accordingly
- many cases demonstrate this
- understand the game of “trick the man to represent a fiction”
- the basics of how not to be tricked
Free Members: H4J:1 Access Here
The legal concepts in play and addressed during this process are what Hope For Justice explores as well as the process of being recognized by the courts in a private status that ensures you invoke the obligation of the court to recognize and protect all your rights.
Understanding how to communicate with the legal system is a vital step as is understanding our proper role as the guardians of justice by actively participating in holding public servants, corporations and governments accountable.
It is painfully clear no that “THEY” are not accountable for their actions and improper/illegal activities when we do nothing. It is up to us individually to know what the rules are and hold them accountable to the laws that are written to BIND them. We have the power, responsibility and DUTY to do so, if we what to bring these corrupted systems back into honour.
These courses on understanding the communication, courts and roles lead to the next two courses in the Hope For Justice series:
NEW Course January, 2012
2. Hope For Justice: In Action (H4J:2-IA)
H4J: In Action –begin taking action to counter the communication you are receiving. This course is a in depth study of principles, attitudes and actions needed to make Hope for Justice reality.
- We explore “conditional acceptance” as a theory and in practice.
- We also explore “honour and dishonour” as a theory and in practice.
- Are they really part of the legal game? How do they work? How Important are they?
Conditional Acceptance (CA) and honour/dishonour appear to be two major keys to understanding every legal process AND basic human interaction. You will become knowledgeable and practiced IF you follow the exercises.
Hope For Justice: In Action is 15 sessions of 2x per week training to understand and learn how to put into action the correct process and attitudes to communicate to the legal system effectively. This is a recorded 8 week webinar study course that was held live (fifteen 90-120 minute sessions).
If you wish access to the course: you must be enrolled for the Do Common Law Courts Exist Course above FIRST….
NEW Course May, 2012
3. Hope For Justice: In Action – Your Complaint IS Their Restraint (H4J:3-IA-c)
H4J-IA-c – Your Complaint IS Their Restraint is a course that covers the ideas, attitudes and legal concepts to back up the idea that the improper actions of civil servants, corporations and government officials REQUIRES our pro-active legal complaint to end incorrect, unlawful, illegal or destructive behaviours.
The course begins with learning that:
- we are RIGHT to complain,
- we are EMPOWERED to complain and
- in fact it is OUR DUTY to complain when we become aware of improper or illegal activities any anyone including public servants and any official person.
Once we understand we can and should complain, the complaint process is explored including how to properly complain to ensure effectiveness.
This course builds on the material covered in Hope For Justice and Hope For Justice: In Action.
This is a recorded 6 week webinar study course that was held live (fifteen 120 minute sessions). The first webinar was May, 2012.
Read more here…
you should have access to each section – 1+2 right away and later sections avery 2 days
if the problem persists let me know
Thanks for getting me in section 3, but I couldn’t get into 1 or 2 either.
there is over 40 hours of video training and lots of articles with free access
only two courses request a donation to help support the work it takes to research and present this material
there is a LOT of valuable info freely accessible that are foundational before you need to consider the donation courses which are optional (and the requested donation for both is not $600). Check out ALL the free info first.
AND there is a note on both courses “(If $150 donation is not possible for you, let us know.)”
I did not realize it would cost me $600 bucks to learn this stuff. I am know better off before I ‘enrolled’. Everyone (everything THING) want my money so I have non for the things that are important to me regarding legal matters. Your web site is yet another tease on a very complicated corruption scenario regarding the ‘legal system’. It is a shame I have nothing to “donate”.
Excellent news. Good job on applying what you learned.
I have successfully used the Conditional Letter of Acceptance to fully clear a close friend of an IRP. It happened on the 14th of Sept 2013. He contacted me on the 16th. I received notice of the ruling by the Superintendents office on the 7th of Oct. clearing him completely. I will go tomorrow to get his car from the impound with no penalties. I would like to discuss how to proceed from here with respect to this. Ruling and the Queens bench. My email is in my profile. Feel free to contact me.
Thank you on behalf of my good friend. He is very grateful. (To say the least). I would like to say “thank you” and “namaste”. I am grateful for you and people like you who still “believe’.
Where to start? I’m not sure what a “PAITALIZED PERSON” is, so I’ll leave that one alone.
In this 2nd trial (in 2011 for “tax evasion” and “counselling” others etc.) Mr. Porski accepted the LEGAL NAME, the jurisdiction of the income tax act and the jurisdiction of the court in his capacity of the “taxpayer”, which he says was his intention.
My basic observations and opinions of the events around his 1st trial in 1999–2000, for “failing to comply with a Notice” to file tax returns, are that first trial appeared to take place in a common law court because he successfully refused to accept the LEGAL NAME, was acknowledged in his status as a “natural person” of common law status, thereby denied jurisdiction under the Income Tax Act.
The entire pretrial and trial is dissected in the “Hope for Justice: Do Common Law Courts Exist?” course found here on this site. Your conclusions about what happened may be different than mine after having herd the “whole story”. Have you actually watched “Hope for Justice: Do Common Law Courts Exist?”.
In 2011 Mr. Porisky, for his own reasons, completely abandoned the process he successfully utilized in the 1st trial (in 2000) by hiring a lawyer, accepting the NAME etc.
The 1st trial (in 2000) he was acquitted without making a defence, the judge did all the work, and the decision was not appealed.
In this 2nd trial (in 2011 for tax evasion +++) after accepting all aspects of jurisdiction over him as a taxpayer he was convicted, sentenced to 4 1/2 years, incarcerated, filed an appeal and presently awaits permission for “leave to appeal”. Form your own opinions after studying both processes, or not.
Thanks for your comment.
PS Is your ALL CAPS key broken?
UPDATE – his first attempt to appeal has been denied.
UPDATE 2 – he has been released from prison pending his Appeal.
MR PORISKY WAS PROCESSED AS A PAITALIZED PERSON INSPITE OF HIS PROTESTS THAT HE WAS APPEARING AS THE REPRESENTITIVE
DO YOU STILL PROTEST THAT THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS EXISTS IN CANADA
BECAUSE THE GUN LAW WILL NOT HERE U ?
WHAT IS PORISKYS STATUS AT THE PRESENT