• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

Learn the common law

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,947
Reaction score
5,072
https://www.svpvril.com/OACL.html

http://www.svpvril.com/clcourse.html
Learn the common law

Knowledge of the Law = FREEDOM

At the close of the Constitutional Convention Franklin was asked, “what kind of government have you wrought for us?” He replied, “a Republican form of government if you can keep it.”

Listening nearby George Washington said, “and in order to keep it every man must know the law.”

When Abraham Lincoln studied law in his cabin what law books was he studying? He was studying books on the Common Law supplied to him by mail order. Statutory and equity law, taught in universities, did not come about until Rockefeller financed it's propagation beginning in the early 1900s - to serve his corporate purposes.



There was a time in America (pre 1910 or so) when Common Law (Constitutional Law) was used everywhere by everyone. The NWO et al changed all that when they financed the establishment of statutory and equity law classes in many universities - to protect and enhance their corporate ideas and controls - by creating swarming hordes of lawyers.

Statutory and equity law serves the king and his corporations while
Common Law serves the common man.

We have unearthed an ORIGINAL home study course in the Common Law. Before there were universities everywhere people had to study at home - just as Lincoln studied law in his cabin. Everyone has heard of the Common Law but very few know what it is. And fewer still know how to implement it. The Common Law is about knowing who "I AM". This course teaches what it is and how to use it in court, in practice and in your life. If you have any interest in the U. S. Constitution and the welfare of this country you must have this course. This book is going to rock America!

Today This Knowledge Is More Important Than Ever!!!

NOW AVAILABLE - A SELF STUDY COURSE ON COMMON & STATUTORY LAW

Common and Statutory Law Self Study Course

vol.1 (Torts, Liens and Criminal Procedures) &

vol. II (Practice and Civil Actions), Constitutional Law

OVER 900 8 1/2" X 11" PAGES IN TWO PERFECT BOUND VOLUMES
AN ORIGINAL STUDY COURSE
FOR INDIVIDUALS PREPARING TO PRACTICE LAW
Complete with Quizzes on each Section
ORIGINALLY PREPARED BY THE BLACKSTONE INSTITUTE

see complete list of Authors of these articles (pdf)
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,947
Reaction score
5,072
Common Law is the Law of the People... Our American Common Law

Please visit the SVPwiki
In court? Need assistance? JurisDictionary

Our American Common Law
"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." Abraham Lincoln
Portions of this publication are copyrighted by Delta Spectrum Research. Permission is hereby granted to any individual or entity to copy this booklet as long as it is presented in its entirety and no pages, quotations, or text are omitted, and that this copyright notice appears in its original form on all copies.

Copyright (C) 1992-2010 Delta Spectrum Research
Our goal is to bring this important message to as many Americans as possible.
Benefit by an Unincorporated Business Trust - UBOT


Our American Common Law

by Howard Fisher and Dale Pond
Common Law is a real thing. It is a real system of laws derived from centuries of work, study and sacrifice of millions of people. It is not trivial and inconsequential as some would have you think. It is the Common Law that is most represented within Our Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Our Bill of Rights. These documents were designed to limit and eliminate the vicious Equity, Maritime or Admiralty Law which was what we revolted against as Our Revolution against the totalitarianism of England.

Did you know the Anglo-American system (Our system) of jurisprudence is the only one which developed out of what is called the Common Law, that is, the general law of private property known in the British Isles? It is true - Common Law was designed through the centuries to secure the rights of individuals (you and me) to property and to make it difficult for property to be taken away from us by a government or governmental structure (bureaucracy) without due process of law. The Common Law was expounded over the years in hundreds of thousands of case decisions as a result of trials in which the Common Law jury acted as the Judges, and in which they exercised the authority to hear and decide questions of both Law and fact. Common Law deals with legal relationships, powers and liabilities, and types of actions rather than theoretical definitions of abstract legal concepts. The Common Law was recognized by Our Founding Fathers and is the basis of all law in America today.

The Common Law recognizes the Power of Government lies in the common people and not in an elite group of power brokers. It is the terrible Equity, Maritime or Admiralty Laws (laws of contract) that steals this power from the people and centralizes it into the hands of a few power oriented men. The Common Law deals in real property whereas the Equity Laws deal in written abstractions of performance (agreements or contracts). In other words, Masters own their own property, work and destiny. We are all Masters when we truly own our own property. Slaves do not own property, they usually rent property of another and are compelled to perform upon or with that rented (tenured) property according to some agreement or contract.

It is from such controversies involving property that all of our Rights have come. Property is known as Substance at the Common Law, and includes hard Money in the form of gold and silver coin as required by Our federal Constitution and every other State Constitution as they were all drafted to be in perfect harmony one with another.

Controversies involving these matters carry with them a Law jurisdiction, a jurisdiction in which all of our Rights are found. The Judge in a Court of Common Law is an impartial referee of the dispute, and he is bound to protect the Rights of the parties to the dispute, or he will have lost whatever jurisdiction he may have had, or claimed to have had. It is the Jury who decides whether or not the Facts of the case are valid and they also decide the Law - does it apply? Is it correct for this case?, etc. Only judges acting under equity law can decide law...

You know you are in an Equity/Admiralty Court when an American flag is displayed that has a GOLD trim. The gold trim denotes military jurisdiction and not Common Law or Constitutional jurisdiction. Wherever this flag is flown the Constitution is NOT. To see the civilian flag click here.

Gold and silver Coin are the only Things recognized at Law (within our Constitution) to be real and lawful money. Money is Substance in possession and not a Chose (thing) in action. When a debt is paid, at Law, the debt is extinguished; debt no longer exists; the debt is paid. Debt can only be paid with gold and silver Coin, or certificates redeemable on demand, at par, in gold and silver Coins. This is the legal meaning of the expression "tender in payment of debt", as found in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution of the United States. Federal Reserve Notes are not money - they are bills/notes and/or certificates of indebtedness as each and every one of them are owed back to the Federal Reserve Bank who lent them to Us - plus interest.

Thomas Jefferson placed great emphasis on the concept of Rights. He said we did not bring the English Common Law, as such, to this continent; we brought the Rights of Man as evidenced through and by the tried and true ancient system of Common Law.

The Common Law of the States of the United States is the Common Law of England adopted by the original Constitution of the United States, so far as not modified by any alterations made by the Constitution of the State at the time of admission to the Union, and so far as not in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United States of America.

And the Common Law of the States may not be modified, limited nor abrogated either by an act of the legislature (Congress or State Legislature) or by a ruling of some judge or by any county board of commissioners or any other servant to the people. Federal and state bureaucracies are constantly writing and presenting code, rules or statutes in an attempt to circumvent the original Common Law foundation of Our Constitution. A major part of the problem that we are in is a result of these unlawful attempts by legislatures, judges and bureaucracies to modify or abrogate Common Law and thus Our Constitution.

While, in England, this Law was derived from feudal tenures in real property as held by a pyramid of proprietors (land owners) holding their rights given them from the King (or Crown) on down the line. The American Revolution destroyed any and all allegiance to the British Crown, including the rights of property in land, and all feudal tenures and dues were overthrown. All Rights of property in land in the United States became ALLODIAL TITLES in Allodial Freehold, existing under no lord or overlord whatsoever, including the authority of the Colony or State. The ties that bound property use or ownership to a higher or superior power were entirely and completed severed, destroyed and made as though they never existed.

This is the reason why our founding fathers considered that they had made every man a "King" on his own property. They got rid of the controls from the King and 'castle keep' owners (feudalism) within property ownership.

In England, William Pitt summarized the concept of private property under Common Law, as follows:

'The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement. "

As a result of all of this, the Common Law of the States is founded and grounded upon substantive titles in real property. No mere legislative enactment by Congress or State Legislature nor judicial ruling by Federal or State Courts can operate to deprive the People of their Rights at Law. This includes their Rights inherent in their Allodial Land Titles and to be Merchants and/or Traders at Law on the cash basis, and their Rights to access to Courts of Law and to a jurisdiction where their Rights are protected.

In the same vein no county or city ordinance, code, rule, policy, regulation or 'law' can override these same absolute guarantees. The same applies to corporate or private policies of business conduct which are often used to override Common Law or Constitutional guarantees. In other words, business or corporate policy cannot supersede Constitution Rights even though nearly every corporation in America ignores Our Constitution in pursuit of ever more bogus Federal Reserve Notes.

As contrasted with the Common Law of England, the system of law as practiced on the Continent of Europe (European Common Market) is called Civil Law, or Roman Civil Law, which is derived from the Law of the Ecclesiastical Chancellors. This is partly the ancient Law of Rhodes, the law of merchant traders upon commercial documents. The Civil Law is prosecuted by the Chancellor (the King's agent); he is not an impartial referee of the dispute.

This Civil Law of Roman origin has never been part of the Laws of England and has been declared not of the Laws of the Realm by the Parliament and by many experts of England in jurisprudence, such as Coke, Blackstone and Sir John Fortescue.

"The Common Law is absolutely distinguished from the Roman or Civil Law systems. "
People v Ballard
155 NYS 2d 59


The Roman Civil Law has always been outside of Common Law, operating on SUMMARY PROCESS, in gross violation of our RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS.

As English society developed over the years, situations were met in the Common Law for which the Courts could provide no relief by any precedent. The controversies did not involve property, or substance. The parties thus had no other recourse than to go to the King. And when they did, he delegated his first minister to solve these problems. The minister was called a Chancellor (the same title as used on the Continent) and the relief granted was called Equity. This "Equity" meant what would be fair if the Common Law principle were extended and applied to the case at hand, as the Chancellor, in his sole discretionary judgment, chose to do. This is the so- called "law" we see being applied by "Judge" Wapner in the well known fake TV court program. He alone decides the law and facts of each case.

There thus developed in England and America two distinct systems of law and courts, each having a peculiar and particular application and jurisdiction. Equity is a jurisdiction in which the individual does not have any Rights, and one to which the individual can be subjected only if he volunteers or gives his informed consent. In the Common Law we have recognized inherent rights whereas in the Equity Law we have no rights whatsoever except those which may be bestowed upon us by the graces of the chancellor -(judge) wholly at his sole discretion.

In Equity there are no jury trials. The powers of the Common Law jury to hear and decide questions of both Law and Fact are exercised exclusively by the Chancellor. However, there may be "advisory juries" to advise the Chancellor of certain facts, but they are not permitted to hear any arguments regarding the Law. (Does this sound familiar today?) The controversies are decided by the Chancellor, who, besides being the Chief Prosecutor, (or Inquisitor, if you will), can go to any source he chooses, even to his own "conscience", to prove or justify his decision. In Equity, the parties do not have any Rights; the Constitution is stated by the Chancellor to be "frivolous"; and any so-called "rights" in his Court are actually "privileges" granted by the Chancellor, which he can also take away. Today this all powerful person is not called a Chancellor. She/He is called a Judge and she/he operates in all levels of "courts" throughout Our Land.

During the past century, the Congress of the United States and the Legislatures of the several States, as well as the Judges have presumed to exercise the authority to "merge" the procedures of Law and Equity. This is authority they do not have, yet this, too, is part of the problem we face today all over Our Land.

When we realize that a Court of Common Law proceeds "according to the course of the Common Law ", and that the parties have a Right to trial by a Common Law jury, where the jury exercises the authority to hear and decide questions of both Law and Fact, we can then know that if we are in a Court where the procedures have been "merged" with Equity, then we can know that we are not in a Court of Common Law ! Such a court does not recognize and refuses, to We The People, our Constitutional Rights to self and property.

For instance, the Constitution of the State of Iowa, Article V, Section 6, states, in part, as follows:

"The District Court shall be a court of law and equity, which shall be distinct and separate jurisdictions, . . . ."

Obviously, the two court systems have not been lawfully merged, and We The People do not have to accept the idea that they have been merged simply because a 'judge" or bureaucrat says a code, rule, statute or regulation makes it so. Remember that these lesser rules and regulations MUST be in harmony with the State and federal Constitutions in order to be valid and lawful. Otherwise they are null and void.

We must realize that the principles of Common Law and of Equity are those as distinguished and defined in England, before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States of America. Any modifications in definition or practice of either Law or Equity in England since the adoption of the Constitution of the United States of America have no significance, bearing or authority in the United States, since we are no longer under the jurisdiction of either Parliament or the Judges of England. Yet there are those in this country who claim that Equity jurisdiction (otherwise known as Chancery jurisdiction) in this country is the same in nature and extent as Equity jurisdiction in England!

Where the Constitution of the United States of America, or the Constitution of the State of Iowa, or of any State, mentions "law", it means "Common Law"; it does not mean any other "kind" of law! ! In addition to the above mentioned jurisdictions of Law (meaning Common Law ) and Equity, which are the only Judicial jurisdictions authorized either by the Constitution of the United States of America, or by the Constitution of the State of Iowa, or of any State, as drafted in conformance thereto, and being second thereto, there is also a private, political jurisdiction which is operative only on those who volunteer into it's private domain, outside of the Constitution. It is known as Law Merchant (lex mercatoria) the private rule of the bankers and merchants.

It is this system of 'legal' snares that has all of We The People by the throat...."

Law Merchant is neither Law nor Equity, but is only raw, private, political power, alien and illegal to our Constitution whatsoever, and operates outside of the Constitution .

The Law Merchant is an independent, parallel system of law, like Equity or Admiralty. The Law Merchant is not even a modification of the Common Law; it occupies a field over which the Common Law does not and never did extend. Common Law deals with the Money of Substance belonging to the People (Gold and Silver Coins); while the Law Merchant deals with the law of Bills, Notes and Checks, (in other words, with negotiable instruments and commercial paper). The Law Merchant is closely allied to the Equity system of agreements and contracts which it uses extensively because the Constitutions of Our States recognizes Equity law. Equity Law is the 'back door' used by Law Merchants (bankers, etc.) to gain access to what used to be Allodial Title or absolute ownership previously enjoyed by all Americans.

Our Declaration of Independence charges that America had been progressively subjected to "a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution" (meaning the unwritten English Constitution), This foreign jurisdiction was a jurisdiction of lawless ad hoc equity derived out of the Roman Civil Law under the stark cover of such obscenities as the Writs of Assistance (which our Courts of today also claim to have the authority to issue) which allowed summary plundering of the colonists' wealth and substance TO THE ADVANTAGE OF the East India Company which controlled the Parliament. (As today, it allows the summary plundering of the American citizens' wealth and substance TO THE ADVANTAGE OF the banks and other financial (lending, insurance, etc.) institutions which control the Congress and State legislatures). It has been recognized and stated for over one hundred years that "we have the best Congress that money can buy" ! !

These Writs, even as only one wrong perpetrated by the commercial interests in the Parliament, were given authority by an Equitable jurisdiction called a debt action in assumpsit. This action, which gave satisfaction pursuant to the customs of the Law Merchant, (having been voluntarily entered into), had been an old debt action triable in a Court of Common Law (merely as a courtesy of the Common Law Courts, and not inherently a part of Common Law) (and triable by a Common Law Jury, as a protection to the Defendant), until lord Mansfield, Chief Justice of the Kings Bench, in 1760, arbitrarily and on his own authority, denied trial by jury in debt actions in assumpsit AND REMOVED THAT ACTION FROM THE Courts of Common Law into the Courts of Equity, where a trial by jury could not be had, and where there was merely a summary proceeding with no semblance of a "due process of Law". In other words, a merchant can, with a flick of his Pen, deprive anyone of their property without due process of Law (Common Law). Sound familiar?

This case is known as:

Moses y MacFerian
2 Burroughs 1005

and is the case that sparked the American Revolution and caused Thomas Jefferson to say that English law since that date (1760) should not ever be used over here as Equity/Merchant laws had become an instrument through which merchants could, from then on, assume power over anyone else's property solely at their discretion and whim.

It was this Equitable debt action in assumpsit which the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States was specifically meant to outlaw, by specifically providing that

"In suits at Common Law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved..."

The significance of this is pointed up by the fact that any controversy involving Money (Gold and Silver Coins) in an amount greater than twenty dollars, or any property such as real estate can only be tried in a Court of Common Law with the right of trial by jury who decides Law as well as the Facts of the case!

This means that any Mortgage Foreclosure action can be tried only in a Court of Common Law, and that the State Legislature has no Constitutional authority to provide, by statute (statutes are not real Law but are in reality 'color' of Law only and therefore are only binding on a voluntary or mutually agreed upon basis), that mortgage foreclosure actions shall be Equity actions! This means that Sheriff's Sales as a result of these Equitable Mortgage Foreclosure actions are null and void! ! And that the Sheriffs have participated in criminal confiscation of real property in violation of the Constitution and of their oaths of office! !

So, it can be seen that summary and arbitrary confiscation of income and property is nothing new in American tradition and history out of an illicit (meaning unlawful and unconstitutional) Equitable jurisdiction. It is precisely this Equitable jurisdiction wherein the Chancellor enforces the combination of unconstitutional Executive and Legislative Equity which is the jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution referred to in the Declaration of Independence. This is precisely what our American Revolution was all about and what our Bill of Rights was designed to prevent.

It is also a measure of the extent that the Bankers (both foreign and domestic) and other merchants, and their stooges, the lawyers and Judges, as well as the politicians of both major political parties, have betrayed the Public Trust and have attempted to place us in a Dictatorship of Unelected Rulers (being the "judges" and bureaucrats) ! !

Thus it can be seen that there is a direct similarity of our political/legal situation today with what it was in the years immediately preceding the Revolution of 1776. Only today we have a written Constitution that spells out our Rights and our freedoms, giving us precedents, whereas two hundred years ago they did not.

The Common Law Jury members (acting as judges of the Law) were sworn to "Do equal law, and execution of Right, to all the King's subjects, rich and poor, without having regard to any person" and that they will deny no man Common Right; but they were NOT sworn to obey or execute any statute of the King, or of the King and Parliament. Indeed, they are virtually sworn NOT to obey or execute any statutes that are against "Common Right", or contrary to the Common Law, or "Law of the Land"; but to certify the King thereof "... that is, to notify the King that his statutes are against the Common Law;.... and then proceed to execute the Common Law, notwithstanding such legislation to the contrary. The words of the oath on this point are these:

"That we deny no man Common Rights by (virtue of) the King's letters, nor none other mans', nor for none other cause; and in case any letters come to you contrary to the Law, (that is, the Common Law) that ye do nothing by such letters, but certify the King thereof, and proceed the execute the Law (that is, the Common Law), notwithstanding the same letters"

In Federalist Papers #48, Alexander Hamilton wrote in part, "No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid." "The Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges as a fundamental law."

The Sheriff is also a servant of the People, elected and paid by and for Them; upon taking office he takes an oath to uphold the Constitution(the People's Law) and keep the peace.

In American Jurisprudence, on Sheriffs, Police and Constables, we find the following:

Origin of office: The office of sheriff is an ancient one, dating back to at least the time of Alfred, King of England, and the holder thereof has always been the chief executive officer and conservator of the peace in his shire or county. He is a county officer representing the executive or administrative power of the state within his county. In this country, the office is generally an elective one, and anciently in England, sheriffs were elected by freeholders of the county, although gradually, it became the custom for the Crown to appoint the Sheriff."

Abraham Lincoln stated the following on February 12, 1865:

"The people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts. Not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U. S. Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land, and any statute to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a statute violating it to be valid. In such a dispute, one must prevail, and that is the Constitution .

In Volume 16, American Jurisprudence, 177, we find the following:

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

"Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. "

The Constitution guarantees the right of a freeholder to protect his property from Criminal Trespass.

Civil law or equity law is the law of the ruler;

Common Law is the law of the people.

It is the sworn duty of the Sheriff to obey and uphold the Constitution and to protect the property and Rights of the freeborn, Sovereign American individuals of the County.

County Sheriffs must be advised of the instances where unlawful acts of officials or agencies of government are committed. It is the duty of the Sheriff to protect the local citizens from such unlawful acts, even when they are committed "under color of law".

There is no lawful authority for Judges and the Courts to direct the law enforcement activities of a County Sheriff. The Sheriff is accountable and responsible only to the citizens who are inhabitants of his County. He is under Oath of Office, and need not receive unlawful Orders from Judges or the Courts. He is responsible to protect citizens, even from unlawful acts of officials of government. He should not allow his office to be used as an unlawful "lackey" of the Courts or Federal agents or agencies.

We Are Our Government
Since the formation of our Republic, the local County (or Parish) has always been the seat of government for the body politic (the People). A County (or Parish) government is the highest authority of government in our Republic as it is closest to the body politic (the People) who are, in fact, THE GOVERNMENT.

The Common Law of the States is founded and grounded upon substantive titles in real property, and no mere legislative enactment by Congress, State legislature or County Commissioners. Neither can judicial ruling by Federal, State or County Courts operate to deprive the People of their Rights at Law, including the Rights inherent in their Allodial Land Title Rights.

The Constitution of the United States of America, Article III, Section 2, authorizes Courts of Law and Courts of Equity; Judicial Equity is authorized; but nowhere does the Constitution of the United States of America authorize a single bit of either Federal Executive branch of government Equity jurisdiction, or Federal Legislative branch of government Equity jurisdiction. In other words, the promulgation and enforcement of Presidential/Congressional/Judicial edicts, dictates, rules, regulations or policies whether directly or through any Federal agent or agency such as the FBI, CIA, EPA, OSHA, IRS, etc. or with the aid and assistance of State or local lackeys is unauthorized.

For instance, the Constitution of the State of Iowa, as drafted in conformance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and being second thereto, Article V, Section 6, authorizes Courts of Law and Courts of Equity; Judicial Equity is authorized; but nowhere does the Constitution of the State of Iowa authorize a single bit of either State Executive branch of government Equity jurisdiction or State Legislative branch of government Equity jurisdiction.



The Federal Bill of Rights was drawn and adopted to guarantee an estoppel (or bar) to the abhorrent Federal Executive and Legislative Equity jurisdiction, and therefore, the State Bill of Rights is also a guaranteed estoppel against any actual or de facto abhorrent State Executive and Legislative Equity jurisdiction; this is an abhorrent and oppressive Equity, because it purports to be able to administer, adjust and deny said Common Law Rights without first pursuing the appropriate remedy at Common Law and thus denying due process. Equity administration is in fact theft of Our Rights and a vicious dictatorship by those who exercise it.

In other words, Federal, Stale and County governments, both Executive branch and Legislative branch, must be at Law working within the Common Law), and may not impose any form of Equity jurisdiction upon the People, by compulsion, fraud or otherwise, without their knowledge and informed consent; otherwise any such enactments become and are nullities and do not exist at Law, because the Rights of freeborn, Sovereign American individuals would be violated if they were to be forced to obey them.

If any agency of the Federal, State or County government, including the court, would act as if it were Principal, and Freeman, against it's true Principal, the People, this would be an inversion of the legal principle of Sovereignty of the People. By so acting, any agency of the government, including the court, would be a pretender to the power, and as a pretender, it's acts would be a nullity and would not exist, at Law; that is to say, that it would be null and void, and of no force and effect, at Law. That, in fact, it would not be government at all, but would be a private, criminal operation, imposing a rule of force, fraudulently pretending to be government, since, in this country, the only legitimate function of government is to protect the Rights and freedoms of the People. Such acts are not unlike the privately owned and operated Mafia who demands our money (taxes, fees, etc.) in exchange for them not committing violence against us or our property. Sound familiar?

Each freeborn, Sovereign American individual has the authority and the Right to deny and to disavow all Equity jurisdiction, and to refuse to acquiesce to the jurisdiction of Courts of Equity, or to Equity jurisdiction of any Executive or Legislative branch of government agency or agent, State or Federal or County.

The Constitution of the United States of America, Article IV, Section 4, guarantees a Republican Form of government to every State.

The definition of a "Republic" is as follows:

"Republic: A state in which the sovereign power resides in a certain body of the people (the electorate), and is exercised by representatives elected by, and responsible to, them; "

Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Fifth Edition .

The Courts of Iowa are nullities, and do not exist, either at Law or in Equity, because unelected State Judges have no jurisdiction at Law or in Equity, over any one or any thing, being in direct violation of each freeborn, Sovereign American individual's Right to a Republican Form of Government; which in this case is his Right to have an Elected Judge. This also includes the Right to Separation of Powers, because the Governor, as Chief Executive of the State, has no Judicial Power to delegate to an appointee. The Governor is of the Executive branch and has (lawfully) no say or jurisdiction within or over the Judicial branch.

The Governor of this or any other State is not a Chancellor (appointed by a King or dictator), nor are any officials appointed under him authorized to exercise any Judicial powers. There can be no delegated power in Chancery law to be executed under the alien, outlawed and illegal Roman Civil Law, unless agreed to by the freeborn, Sovereign American individual.

That evil and alien jurisdiction, the de facto Equity jurisdiction of the Roman Civil Law, allows judges to enforce the unlawful summonses of IRS agents, Highway Patrol Officers, city policemen, building inspectors, OSHA agents, FDA agents, and the agents of all other equally unlawful regulatory bodies of so-called government, who attempt to impose a jurisdiction in which the Rights of freeborn, Sovereign American individuals are unrecognized and violated.

That evil and vicious Roman Civil Law allows the 'judges' to have We The People arrested, jailed, and property taken away from us, or our property to be criminally trespassed upon and destroyed; all without a Common Law Trial by Jury, or just compensation, or due process of law. These violent acts by unelected dictators are committed often over simple idiocies such as "willful failure to file" a paper or failure to properly fill out a form or unknowingly not following some obscure and stupid procedure, rule or regulation.

Under the Common Law (Our Constitution), no bureaucrat can dictate what happens to Our liberty or Our property. The only entity that can determine punishment (pass sentence) upon a freeborn, Sovereign American individual is a lawfully constituted Common Law Jury.

Aiding and abetting the IRS (foreign agents to the States) and similar agencies in enforcing their unlawful summonses, fraudulent liens and assessments constitute an enforcement of the alien and evil Roman Civil Law and is in fact fascist totalitarianism.

Compelling a freeborn, Sovereign American individual to do anything, except upon the verdict of a Common Law Jury, constitutes an enforcement of the alien and evil Roman Civil Law and is in fact fascist totalitarianism.

Thomas Jefferson has been credited with the warning how the judicial branch of government would usurp the authority of the Executive and Legislative branches of government and turn the country into a judicial dictatorship.

He was right - it has happened.

They Stole Our Gold (Money)!
"All of the confusions and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit [paper money] and circulation."
John Adams (1781)

So began admonishments to us from 200 years ago by one who knew what awaited his countrymen (us). What has happened to Our money is criminal. In fact, it is beyond criminal and nearly beyond credibility. Just after World War II America had nearly one billion ounces of gold coin in circulation and untold millions of ounces of silver coins. These metals in circulation represented real undiluted debt-free capital. It was ours and we owed no one anything for it. This $400,000,000,000 pool of liquid capital belonged to private American citizens and represented the wealth of our great nation. What happened to all this wealth?

Before most of us were born money was a real thing. It was gold and silver coin as specified by Our Constitution, the founding law of Our country:

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8

"The Congress shall have the power ... to coin Money, regulate the value thereof"

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 10

"No State shall ... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit (paper money); make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts."

In other words no federal or state government was permitted, by law, to mint or issue anything other than gold and silver coins as lawful money. Neither are they permitted to accept or pay debts with anything other than gold and silver coin. What? Where did all this paper come from and what is it if it isn't Money? Listen up - this gets real interesting...

Well guess what happened? If you are lucky enough to have any 'money' in your pocket take it out and examine it. On the front (near the portrait) of the bill you will find the words: "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private". Across the lop of the bill you will read the words: "Federal Reserve Note". Nowhere on this bill are the words: gold, silver or money. This is because this bill is not money as defined by Our Constitution (see above). It is not money at all. It says what it is - it is a note issued by a private, tax-exempt, for profit bank - the Federal Reserve Bank(s). Which are all owned privately by people living outside of America.

A 'note' is: 'a paper acknowledging a debt or promising to pay (also called note of hand); also a certificate, as of a government or a bank, passing current as money.' The portion "passing current as money" means passing from one person to another and generally accepted as money. This implies that it is not money but is only accepted as money. It is the Constitution that defines what real money is: it is gold and silver coin. The bill in your pocket is in actuality an instrument of debt - it is owed to somebody - The Federal Reserve Banks and their foreign owners.

"Money is not only a medium of exchange, but it is a standard of value. Nothing can be such standard which has not intrinsic value, or which is subject to frequent changes in value."
Justice Fields (1883)

Now so much for definitions. What does paper or metal money have to do with anything? Are you working harder now and enjoying it less? Are you really better off now then when you began working so many years ago? Are your children making it better or worse than you did when you started out? Why does it take two people working very hard to not make ends meet worse now than when one was working in the 50s and 60s? The answer to this question lies in the money. Our money has become nearly worthless. Remember back in the late 60s a new Volkswagen bug cost less than $2,000. Today that same car (with a different body) cost about $7,000. These are the same 'dollars' you have in your pocket. A soda pop cost a nickel back then and now how much is the very same item? Herein lies the evilness of paper money. The Federal Reserve Banks (and their stooges) can print as much of it as they want whenever they want. This flooding the market (your pocket) with more and more cash is called 'fractional reserve' banking when coupled with the local bank's privilege of signing money into existence whenever they want more to lend some to you.

It is a fantasy that Our government prints (issues) money.

It really works like this: The US Congress desires to spend (that' s how they stay in office) more money to buy our votes. There is a problem here as there is no money because the Congress of 1913 gave their own Constitutional right to coin real money away to a bunch of foreign bankers - the Federal Reserve Banks. The Congress must request the Federal Reserve to issue and then lend them (Us) some Federal Reserve notes. The privately owned, tax exempt Federal Reserve Bank lends these notes to the U.S. Government (you and me and our children and neighbors). The tax-exempt Fed only pays the U.S. Treasury about 3 cents per bill for these (regardless of denomination) as printing cost. But when we get these funny pieces of paper we have to pay the full face value back with our blood sweat and tears PLUS ANY INTEREST the thieves think is appropriate for them. Guess what didn't happen in this transaction? The thieving Fed never printed the interest! So we can maybe pay back 100% of what we borrowed but there are no more Fed notes to pay the interest! Every time Our government employees borrows more from the private Fed we get further and further into debt - a debt that can never be paid!

"The burden of debt is as destructive to Freedom as subjugation by conquest."
Benjamin Franklin

In the beginning we paid this bogus and illegal debt with real money - gold - until it was all gone on March 9, 1933 when Roosevelt literally, willfully and without due process of law took the gold away from the American citizen (Us) and gave it to the bunch of thieves at the Fed in exchange for paper. Paper which could only do one thing - put us further into irretrievable debt. Why put America into deeper and deeper debt? Reread Franklin's quote in the previous paragraph. The idiotic process continued until 1968 when they took the balance of our silver to pay for even more of these worthless notes.

"If Americans ever allow banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless."
Thomas Jefferson

On June 5, 1933, as a result of a prearranged banking crisis, the Congress of the United States passed House Joint Resolution No. 192, suspending the Gold Standard (they did not abolish it), which means they disestablished the fixed content of the Gold Dollar and took away the Law jurisdiction of the U. S. Standard Dollar Lawful Money. In effect, the entire country, every State and every freeborn, Sovereign American individual, became insolvent and was effectively put into bankruptcy, making it impossible for each State and each individual to either pay their debts, at Law, or to be paid, at Law. This was, in actuality, a criminal act of usurpation of the sovereignty of We The People, by Congress.

Merchant Law
Instead of being able to demand payment at Law, or to make payment in Standard Gold Dollars as Lawful money, or the equivalent Treasury currency, redeemable on demand, at Par, We The People were forced on to the credit of the private banks, the Federal Reserve Banks and the commercial banks, and began to pass around their debt instruments, as though it were real money, making use of their debt-claims for the money, and thereby, by the operation of House Joint Resolution No, 192, into an alien and unlawful Federal Executive Equity Jurisdiction, known as lex mercatoria, or the Law Merchant, which is the private rule of the bankers, and from which jurisdiction our forefathers fought, and won, a revolution to be free, and from which jurisdiction our Constitution and Bill of Rights protects Us.

When you can pay your debts in Standard Gold Dollars, you operate on a cash basis in a Federal Common Law jurisdiction based on Article I, Section 10, clause 1, of the Constitution of the United States of America regarding tender in payment of debts. This is the General Federal Common Law jurisdiction deriving from the Union, which the Bill of Rights was designed to protect, particularly the Seventh Amendment which guarantees the Right of Trial by Common Law Jury in suits at Common Law where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars. But, when you pass around evidences of debt as if it were the money itself, you are passing around the debt-claims for the money, and you no longer have a jurisdiction at Law, where the individual has access to his Rights, but you are in an entirely different court, or jurisdiction. You are in an Equity jurisdiction, one in which the individual does not have any Rights. And this is the practical effect which Congress intended to bring about by passing House Joint Resolution No. 192. Even one hundred years ago it was stated that "we have the best Congress that money can buy".

"Paper Money is Theft!"
George Washington

By the operation of House Joint Resolution No. 192, individuals, and States, have been compelled to "perform services", in order, not to pay (no one could "pay" anymore because there was no real money with which to "pay"), but to "discharge obligations" to pay.

What is called "fractional reserve banking", with irredeemable paper, creates multiple demands upon a common substance. That is, banks can issue or create "money" simply by making a ledger entry. These newly created dollars (ledger entries) are "backed" by the same few dollars already held on deposit. In fact a bank, can "create" 20 dollars for every one on deposit, lend them to you, collect the principle and interest and then simply write the money back into nonexistence. In other words, you are forced at the point of the Sheriff's gun to pay for something that was created out of thin air - plus interest. With multiple demands, no one can ever satisfy all his claims and no one can ever "pay" at Law in substance, that is, with Standard Gold Dollars, but instead, can only "perform services" as evidence of his willingness to "discharge the obligation to pay". Payment, as such, is thus forever postponed; one only promises the payment.

Overnight, the entire country was placed in an entirely new regime of Equity, which never "pays" a thing but only compels services forever to the private banks, and the debts to private bankers constantly increases, the interest obligations, known as "debt service", constantly compounds and the performance of services in order to "discharge the obligation to pay" this interest are never- ending, being a greater and greater burden upon ourselves and our children, and our children's' children.

In other words, a feudalistic real property law, in the guise of Equitable discharge of obligations to tender in Equity and not "pay" at Law, was instituted in violation of our Allodial Property Rights, and compels Sovereign American individuals into a feudalistic peonage, or involuntary servitude to the private banks (Federal Reserve Banks, National Banks, State Banks), in violation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Because of the jurisdiction of the Law Merchant, we are not under Common Law, we do not have access to our Right to a Common Law Jury, and as a result our property can be, and every day is, taken without due process of Law. If we do not "perform the services" our property is taken from us by Equity courts imposing the Law Merchant.

Compelled performance is in fact slavery.
The Sheriff, in unknowing and unthinking acceptance of this situation, has become the "bag man" for a bunch of private criminals, and thereby is committing crimes himself, and is therefore a criminal. It is a crime to violate Constitutional Rights and his oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of his own State, it being drafted in conformance thereto, and being secondary thereto.

The Banks, including the Federal Reserve Banks and the National Banks, are incorporated by the State and operate under Banking Statutes (you will notice I do not use the word Laws), These statutes allow, or at least do not prohibit, the creation of "demand deposits" or "checkbook money", which is not really money, but is actually credit, or debt, created on the spot out of thin air on two levels. One by the Federal Reserve Banks (they write checks on themselves, thereby creating Federal Reserve Credit "out of thin air", in order to "purchase investments", such as U. S. Government Securities. These then become part of the National Debt, and provide the banking system with new Reserves). On the strength of these newly purchased Securities, they are able to obtain from the Treasury, newly printed Federal Reserve Notes, to cover the new checks when they are cashed. They only have to tender about three cents for each new Federal Reserve Note regardless of denomination. They are practically given the new paper Notes and they still hold the Bonds, which are part of the National Debt, and collect interest on them. The second level is by the local commercial bank which creates bank credit, denominated "demand deposits", every time they make a loan. The Federal Reserve Bank (is a private Anglo-German-American owned corporation. It is for-profit, and is tax-exempt!) creates public credit (National Debt), while the commercial banks create private credit (private debt) when they make a loan.

The Federal Reserve Note, at least the one issued in accordance with Title 12, United States Code, Section 411, which requires that they "shall be obligations of the United States and shall be redeemable on demand . . .", has a double jurisdiction. It is what you may call a legal tender for an equitable interest. That means it passes at Law as money, being a legal tender, but the only interest it passes along is a mere demand or promise. Hence, though it is "legal" or at Law, it never pays the gold because of House Joint Resolution No. 192, which illegally and criminally prohibited payment of the U. S. Standard Dollar Lawful Money, at par, and thus at Law.

It should be noted that Congress did not (could not) take away our Rights to use bank notes at Law, or demand deposits at Law; they just took away our money.

We have a Right, to take a twenty dollar bill, which means a bill for twenty dollars, into a bank and demand a twenty dollar gold piece. Congress did not take that Right away; since we have unalienable Rights which cannot be taken from us or be forced to give them up; Congress just took away the gold. This was and is a criminal usurpation of the Sovereignty of We The People on the part of Congress; and the State of Iowa, and each other State, by allowing it to happen at that time, and by continuing to allow it to happen to this date, has become party to this crime against We The People.

Instead of going into bankruptcy, everyone, including the States, was provided with the opportunity to use the new Federal Reserve Notes, called (incorrectly) "lawful money" grounded in perpetual debt of the "eligible paper" which formed the assets of the Federal Reserve and the National Banks, These are also known as "units of monetized debt". Everyone thus became the creditor/debtor of everyone else, since no one has paid or been paid for anything since that infamous day of June 5, 1933 when Roosevelt willfully and knowingly stole Our gold and gave it to a bunch of foreign bankers. (Lawfully, debts can only be paid with money - money as defined by the Law of the Land - The Constitution - being gold and silver coin. Anything else is not lawful money and cannot therefore lawfully "pay a debt".) Thus, overnight, We The People became liable for specific performance on the basis of a debt action of assumpsit under the private Law Merchant, operating outside of the Constitution and imposing an Equitable jurisdiction. A jurisdiction in which no one has any rights, where one can be compelled summarily to deliver his property without trial by Common Law jury. And the debts to the private bankers keep mounting ever higher.

A freeborn, Sovereign American individual cannot be forced into perpetual debtorship and involuntary servitude, that is, feudalistic performance on behalf of, and for the benefit of, any person, real or juristic, against his Thirteenth Article of Amendments to the Constitutionof the United States of America. Nor can He be compelled, by Law, to accept, or to give informed consent to accept, an Equitable jurisdiction foreign to his Bill of Rights.

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution of The United States of America, states in part:

"The Judicial Power shall extend .. . . . to all Cases of Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction; ... . ."

At the very beginning of government under the Constitution , Congress conferred on the federal district courts exclusive cognizance "of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, . . . . . . ; saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a Common Law remedy, where the Common Law is competent to give it;. . ." (1 STAT 77, Section 9 (1789))

As this jurisdiction is held to be exclusive, the power of legislation on the same subject must necessarily be in the national legislature and not in the state legislatures.

Congress enacted the Limited Liability Act on March 3, 1851. It is codified at Title 46, United States Code, Sections 181-189, as amended in 1875, 1877, 1935, 1936 and the Act of 1884. It intended to cover the entire subject of limitations, and to invest the U. S. District Courts with exclusive original cognizance of all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, exclusive of the States. This means that the States do not have any jurisdiction in admiralty and maritime matters, at all.

Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction comprises two types of cases: (1) those involving acts committed on the high seas or other navigable waters, and (2) those involving contracts and transactions connected with shipping employed on the seas or navigable waters. In other words, the second type of case must have a direct connection with maritime commerce.

Suits in admiralty traditionally took the form of a proceeding in rem against the vessel, and, with exceptions to be noted, such proceedings in rem are confined exclusively to federal admiralty courts, because the grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the federal courts by the Judiciary Act of 1789 has been interpreted as referring to the traditional admiralty action, the in rem action, which was unknown to the Common Law.

State courts are forbidden by the Constitution to have Admiralty jurisdiction. While State courts are permitted to handle and try Admiralty cases if the suitor desires, it must be an Admiralty matter to begin with and it must involve property, otherwise there would not be a Common Law remedy. In other words, the Common Law courts would not be competent to handle it. More than this, it would need to be tried in a Common Law court, following Common Law procedures (not Equity procedures) with a Trial by a Common Law jury.

Therefore, any attempt by a State court to impose a judgment in rem is in violation of the Constitution and is null and void. When a sheriff attempts to enforce a judgment in rem he is attempting to impose the alien and unlawful Roman Civil Law, in violation of his oath of office, and he is thereby committing a criminal act.

The Sovereign American people are beginning to catch on to and realize the nature of the Dictatorship of Unelected Rulers that has been set up in this country, and They are no longer quietly accepting such vile treatments.

As the issues become clarified, each public official will need to make a decision: shall he be on the side of the Constitution and protect the Rights and freedoms of We The People (of which he is one), as required by his oath of office; or shall he be a party to the criminal usurpation of the Sovereignty of We The People?

The Sheriff is a key person in all of this: he can either be a tool of the evil forces who have set this up and provide the oppressive force that binds the innocent victims to the chains of slavery, all in the name of "doing his duty", or he can be the instrument of liberation for We The People by preventing the imposition of the unconstitutional Equitable jurisdiction (the Roman Civil Law) upon Us, the victims and Our property and protecting Our Rights and freedoms.

Our Individual
Common Law Rights

by Howard Fisher & Dale Pond
Another Constitutional issue that each of us needs to understand is the issue of Individual Common Law Rights of We the People of the United States of America. This directly concerns the limits of authority of all branches of government over each of us as individuals: the Authority of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches of Government.

As stated in the Declaration of Independence, we are endowed by our Creator with certain Unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Thomas Jefferson placed great emphasis on the concept of Rights. He said we did not bring the English Common Law, as such, to this continent; we brought the Rights of Man. The reason why he said that is that it is from the Common Law controversies, all of which involved property, that all of our Rights have come to be recognized in the Law.

In a legal sense, Property is a bundle of Rights, a bundle of Powers, wherein one claimant to these Rights possesses these Rights to the exclusion of all other claimants to These Rights, as these Rights pertain to The possession, occupancy and use of a specific piece of property.

So, at Common Law, Rights is the name of the game.

The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution of the United States of America because the Founding Fathers believed these Amendments should be added to avoid misconstruction of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America by Judges and to avoid an abuse of powers by Judges of The sort that had already, at that time, taken place in England and from which abuse of powers we had just fought, and won, a revolution to be free. (See the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. The original Constitution has it, and in some sources which print the Constitution, this Preamble is included.) This abuse had been committed by Judges who were not tied down by any written Constitution in England, and who had started to whittle away at the Common Law Rights in England and the Colonies, by their decisions, with the cooperation of the statutes passed by the Parliament and enforced by the Crown. This is precisely the combination of Executive and Legislative Equity (otherwise known as Roman Civil Law) which our Bill of Rights prevents and protects us from.

As example, the Constitution of the Iowa has its Bill of Rights, comprising Article I. The first two sections deserve special emphasis :

Section 1. All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights -- among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and They have the right, at all times, to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it.

So the Constitution of the State of Iowa for example expressly includes the Right of acquiring, possessing and protecting Property, although it is high on the Priority List of Common Law Rights. This is an example of a Constitution securing Rights which come from the Common Law.

Back in 1921 someone wrote:

It is not the Right of property which is protected, but the Right to property. Property, as such, has no rights; but the individual -- the man -- has three great Rights, equally sacred from interference: the Right to his LIFE; the Right to his LIBERTY; the Right to his PROPERTY. ...

The three Rights are so bound together as to be essentially one Right, To give a man his life but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes life worth living. To give him his liberty but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave him a slave.

Thomas Jefferson said:

"Our rulers can have no authority over [our] natural rights, only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others."

This points up the significance of the requirement of the procedures of the Common Law that there be an injured party, that the injured party make a sworn complaint as to the injury that has been done to him by the alleged Defendant. That unless this is done, the Court does not have jurisdiction over the Defendant.

We have been told. from childhood, that we have unalienable Rights, and we do! Unalienable means that they cannot be taken from us, and that we cannot be forced to give them up. There are those who point out that, strictly speaking, we cannot even give them up voluntarily. However, if we submit to those who would rule over us, it is true that our Rights were not taken from us -- as Thomas Jefferson said, -- we have submitted to their rule. We have allowed ourselves to become their slaves. There is one important fact concerning slavery, of any sort, the institution of slavery depends upon the cooperation of the slaves! Without the cooperation of the slaves, there can be no slavery.

In Common Law Courts our Rights are protected. The Rules and Procedures of the Common Law Courts were established to protect our Property Rights -- to make it difficult for Property to be taken from someone without Due Process of Law. The Right to require That an injured party swear under oath as to damage or injury that he claims that you caused to him; the Right to a Corpus Delicti : The body of the offense: " the essence of the crime." : Under the Common Law, the Courts do not have an automatic jurisdiction. The Common Law Rules and Procedures specify certain steps, or procedures, which must be done, and certain things which must not be done -- all as a protection to the Rights of the Accused. And, as we have pointed out previously, Rights are inherent in Property, and Property is inherent in Rights. We have the Right to have our controversy, once the Common Law Court has acquired jurisdiction, tried before a Common Law Jury of our Peers, wherein the Jury has the authority to hear and decide questions of both Law and Fact. There is no monkey business of pretending that arguments involving the Law must be held outside of the hearing of the Jury and that their supposed only function is to hear and decide questions of Fact presented in evidence and that the Judge will tell them what the Law is !

As evidence that the Founding Fathers operated under the Common Law, in addition to the wording of the Constitution of the United States of America, the following was included in the instructions to the Jury in the first case ever tried before the United States Supreme Court, as a court of original jurisdiction, which means that a Trial by Jury was held in front of the Supreme Court, with Chief Justice John Jay presiding:

"It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumably, that the courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision. You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. "
STATE OF GEORGIA vs. BRAILSFORD . 3 Dall I (1794 )

Our Property Rights are inseparable from our individual Rights and our individual Rights are inseparable from our Property Rights. Both types of Rights are protected in the Procedures and Due Process of the Courts of Common Law.

The Bill of Rights in both Constitutions have to do with matters that the Governments, both of the United States and of the State, have to do with matters that the government, and its agents and agencies, have no authority over at all to enact statutes, or to issue rules and regulations, binding on the individual, dealing with such Rights as are included in the Bill of Rights. It should be emphasized that the Ninth Amendment includes all of the Common Law Rights which are not listed, or enumerated, anywhere else. In other words, the Bill of Rights are prohibitions against government at any level over the individual.

The Constitution authorizes Courts of Law and Courts of Equity. When the Constitution says Law, it means Common Law, because that's what the Founding Fathers meant when they said Law. In Courts of Law your Rights are protected by the Constitution and the Rules and Procedures of the Common Law, known as Due Process of Law; and the Bill of Rights was adopted to avoid misconstruction and abuse of powers, by the Judges; but in Courts of Equity, by the nature of Equity jurisdiction, you don't have any Constitutional Rights.

Within the existing Equity Courts the only rights you might acquire for yourself are the terrible so-called Civil Rights or the rights under the Uniform Commercial Code. These are much lesser rights than those of the Constitution because these latter are Natural God given rights whereas the former are granted privileges from an artificial government of bureaucrats.

You know you are in an Equity/Admiralty Court when an American flag is displayed that has a GOLD trim. The gold trim denotes military jurisdiction and not Common Law or Constitutional jurisdiction. Wherever this flag is flown the Constitution is NOT. To see the civilian flag click here.



THE STORY OF THE BUCK ACT
Richard McDonald
edited by
Mitch Modeleski

In order for you to understand the full import of what is happening, I must explain certain laws to you.

When passing new statutes, the Federal government always does everything according to the principles of law. In order for the Federal Government to tax a Citizen of one of the several states, they had to create some sort of contractual nexus. This contractual nexus is the "Social Security Number".

In 1935, the federal government instituted Social Security. The Social Security Board then created 10 Social Security "Districts". The combination of these "Districts" resulted in a "Federal area" which covered all the several states like a clear plastic overlay.

In 1939, the federal government instituted the "Public Salary Tax Act of 1939". This Act is a municipal law of the District of Columbia for taxing all federal and state government employees and those who live and work in any "Federal area".

Now, the government knows it cannot tax those state Citizens who live and work outside the territorial jurisdiction of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) or Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) in the U.S. Constitution . So, in 1940, Congress passed the "Buck Act", 4 U.S.C.S. Sections 105-113. In Section 110(e), this Act authorized any department of the federal government to create a "Federal area" for imposition of the "Public Salary Tax Act of 1939". This tax is imposed at 4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 111. The rest of the taxing law is found in the Internal Revenue Code. The Social Security Board had already created a "Federal area" overlay.

4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 110(d). The term "State" includes any Territory or possession of the United States.

4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 110(e). The term "Federal area" means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State.

There is no reasonable doubt that the federal "State" is imposing an excise tax under the provisions of 4 U.S.C.S. Section 105, which states in pertinent part:

Sec. 105. State, and so forth, taxation affecting Federal areas; sales or use tax

(a) No person shall be relieved from liability for payment of, collection of, or accounting for any sales or use tax levied by any State, or by any duly constituted taxing authority therein, having jurisdiction to levy such tax, on the ground that the sale or use, with respect to which such tax is levied, occurred in whole or in part within a Federal area; and such State or taxing authority shall have full jurisdiction and power to levy and collect any such tax in any Federal area within such State to the same extent and with the same effect as though such area was not a Federal area.

Irrespective of what the tax is called, if its purpose is to produce revenue, it is an income tax or a receipts tax under the Buck Act [4 U.S.C.A, Secs, 105-110]. Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Calvert, 464 SW 2d. 170 (1971), affd (Tex) 478 SW 2d. 926, cert. den. 409 U.S. 967, 34 L.Ed. 2d. 234, 93S. Ct. 293.

Thus, the obvious question arises: What is a "Federal area"? A "Federal area" is any area designated by any agency, department, or establishment of the federal Government. This includes the Social Security areas designated by the Social Security Administration, any public housing area that has federal funding, a home that has a federal bank loan, a road that has federal funding, and almost everything that the federal government touches through any type of aid. Springfield v. Kenny, 104 N.E, 2d 65 (1951 App.). This "Federal area" attaches to anyone who has a Social Security Number or any personal contact with the federal or state governments. Through this mechanism, the federal government usurped the Sovereignty of the People, as well as the Sovereignty of the several states, by creating "Federal areas" within the boundaries of the states under the authority of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) in the federal Constitution, which states:

2. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States, and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Therefore, all U.S. citizens [i.e, citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the Union, are classified as property, as franchisees of the federal government, and as an "individual entity". See Wheeling Steel Corp, v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S. Ct, 773. Under the "Buck Act", 4 U.S.C.S. Secs. 105-113, the federal government has created a "Federal area" within the boundaries of all the several states. This area is similar to any territory that the federal government acquires through purchase, conquest or treaty, thereby imposing federal territorial law upon all people in this "Federal area". Federal territorial law is evidenced by the Executive Branch's yellow-fringed U.S. flag flying in schools, offices and all courtrooms. To see the civilian flag click here.

You must live on land in one of the states in the Union of several states, not in any "Federal State" or "Federal area", nor can you be involved in any activity that would make you subject to "federal laws". You cannot have a valid Social Security Number, a "resident" driver's license, a motor vehicle registered in your name, a "federal" bank account, a Federal Register Account Number relating to Individual persons [SSN], (see Executive Order Number 9397, November 1943), or any other known "contract implied in fact" that would place you within any "Federal area" and thus within the territorial jurisdiction of the municipal laws of Congress, Remember, all acts of Congress are territorial in nature and only apply within the territorial jurisdiction of Congress. (See American Banana Co, v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347, 356-357 (1909); U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 222, 94 L.Ed. 3, 70 S, Ct. 10(1949); New York Central R.R. Co, v. Chisholm, 268 U.S. 29, 31-32, 69 L.Ed, 828, 45 S. Ct. 402 (1925).)

There has been created a fictional Federal "State within a state". See Howard v. Sinking Fund of Louisville, 344 U.S. 624, 73 S. Ct. 465, 476, 97 L.Ed, 617 (1953); Schwartz v. O'Hara TP. School Dist., 100 A. 2d, 621, 625, 375 Pa. 440, (Compare also 31 C.F.R. Parts 51.2 and 52.2, which also identify a fictional State within a state.) This fictional "State" is identified by the use of two-letter abbreviations like "CA", "AZ" and "TX", as distinguished from the authorized abbreviations like "Calif.", "Ariz." and "Tex.", etc. This fictional State also uses ZIP codes which are within the municipal, exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress.

This entire scheme was accomplished by passage of the "Buck Act", 4 U.S.C.S. Secs. 105-113, to implement the application of the "Public Salary Tax Act of 1939" to workers within the private sector. This subjects all private sector workers who have a Social Security number to all state and federal laws "within this State", a "fictional Federal area" overlaying the land in California and in all other states in the Union. In California, this is established by California Form 590, Revenue and Taxation. All you have to do is to state that you live in California. This establishes that you do not live in a "Federal area" and that you are exempt from the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 and also from the California Income Tax for residents who live "in this State".

The following definition is used throughout the several states in the application of their municipal laws which require some sort of contract for proper application. This definition is also included in all the codes of California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah and New York:

"In this State" or "in the State" means within the exterior limits of the State ... and includes all territories within such limits owned or ceded to the United States of America.

This definition concurs with the "Buck Act" supra which states:

110(d) The term "State" includes any Territory or possession of the United States.

110(e) The term "Federal area" means any lands or remises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State.

So, do some research. I have given you all the proper directions in which to look for the jurisdictional nexus that places you within the purview of the federal government.

What can you do?
Wake up! Get active!!!! Do something!!! Do a little research! We can all do something -no matter how seemingly insignificant.

We can: pass along pamphlets like this one. We can attend weekly meetings assembled for no other purpose than to figure out what to do. We can attend city and county council meetings and see that our servants don't steal the store. We can participate in local and state elections. The federal elections are reported to be totally rigged. We can have a positive influence on local and state affairs, PTAs and school boards. It takes little more than writing a letter, sending a FAX or making a phone call to your various servants. They listen when enough of us take the time to get their attention.

"Hey! Buddy! You work for We The People! not the Japanese, the bankers or Europeans. You will take care of our business and do it right!"

If your local servants refuse to obey the Constitution and your neighbors get someone who will to run for their office, Then get out there and make sure they get elected. This is the only way We The People can take back our government from the special interest groups.

This is happening all over the country. Counties have been taken back in Indiana, Alabama, New Mexico, Nevada and California. Why not yours? It is a simple thing to do.

Do it! Millions of Americans are beginning to find out who they really are and who the government really is.

We are the government.


"In the Common Law we have recognized inherent rights whereas in the Equity Law we have no rights whatsoever excepting those which may be bestowed upon us by the graces of the Chancellor (Judge) - wholly at his sole discretion."
"Compelling a freeborn, Sovereign American individual to do anything, except upon the verdict of a Common Law Jury, constitutes an enforcement of the alien and evil Roman Civil (Equity) Law and is in fact fascist totalitarianism. "


"There is no lawful authority for Judges and the Courts to direct the law enforcement activities of a County Sheriff. The Sheriff is accountable and responsible only to the citizens who are inhabitants of his County, He is under Oath of Office, and need not receive unlawful Orders from Judges or the Courts. He is responsible to protect citizens, even from unlawful acts of officials of government. He should not allow his office to be used as an unlawful "lackey" of the Courts or Federal agents or agencies."

"The Sheriff, in unknowing and unthinking acceptance of [the imposition of Equity or Merchant Law], has become the "bag man" for a bunch of private criminals [bankers], and thereby is committing crimes himself, and is therefore a criminal. It is a crime to violate Constitutional Rights and his oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of his own State, it being drafted in conformance thereto, and being secondary thereto. "
References -
More Reading Materials on
Zoning & Property (Rights) Modernization of Zoning -
A Means to Reform
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg19n2f.html
Property and Freedom - a book review http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv22n2/bookreviews.pdf
Property and Freedom, by Richard Pipes;
Hardcover, 317pp., ISBN: 0375404988; Publisher: Knopf Alfred A; April 1999
 
Last edited:

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,269
Reaction score
4,928
Thanks Bigjon. Great content here. Sadly most people won’t even open this thread and fewer will bother to educate themselves by taking the time to read it.
 

GOLDZILLA

Harvurd Koleej Jeenyus
Midas Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
8,779
Reaction score
9,466
One law should be that all laws should be written so that anyone with an 8th grade education can understand the law, or it is invalid.
 

Strawboss

Apocaloptimist
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,820
Reaction score
18,028
One law should be that all laws should be written so that anyone with an 8th grade education can understand the law, or it is invalid.
Might be setting the bar a bit too high...

I would suggest 5th grade...
 

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,269
Reaction score
4,928
One law should be that all laws should be written so that anyone with an 8th grade education can understand the law, or it is invalid.

But then people would be competent enough to upstanding on the law and lawyers (people who have learned the secret language the law isn’t written in) wouldn’t be needed to attorn...
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Sr Midas Sup +++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Survivor
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
22,820
Reaction score
47,501
Location
ORYGUN
Some more from my archives:

UNDERSTANDING COMMON LAW
© Copyright 1994 Sovereign Services ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
A Brief History of Common Law
Until the 12th century, law in the western world consisted of written laws, called Civil Laws, all traceable to Roman Law. This basic system still prevails in many countries as well as in the state of Louisiana.
However, after the Norman conquest of Britain in 1066, a legal tradition called the "common law," different from that of civil law, began to develop in England. In the 1100s during the reign of the legal reformer, Henry II, court decisions were written down and catalogued according to the types of cases. When the courts were called on to decide similar issues later, they reviewed the earlier decisions and if one was found that covered the earlier decision, they applied the principle of the earlier decision. They called this doctrine, "stare decisis," a Latin term meaning "to stand by the decision."
Under this rule of stare decisis, once a legal issue has been resolved as it applied to a particular set of facts, a court did not reconsider that legal issue in a later case where the factual circumstances were substantially similar. But this did not mean that every decision stood forever. However, the principle of stare decisis was a strong one, and judges were reluctant to discard well-established rules, and took great pains to explain a significant departure from a precedent.
During America's colonial period, most of the English common law tradition did not change, and the new country continued to follow English common law. When the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1789, the Constitution, based upon the common law inherited from England, became the new foundation on which the American legal system was built.
If you're interested in learning more about the history of common law, I recommend Origins of The Common Law by Arthur R. Hogue (LibertyPress, 7440 N. Shadeland, Indianapolis, IN 46250; 1985).
The Two Basic Common Laws
According to Richard J. Maybury (Whatever Happened to Justice? - Bluestocking Press, PO Box 1014, Placerville, CA 95667; 1993 - highly recommended), there are two fundamental common laws:
1.Do all you have agreed to do; 2.Do not encroach on other persons or their property.
"Do all you have agreed to do" is the basis for contract law. "Do not encroach... " is the basis for criminal law and tort law. A "tort" is harm done to someone.
Black's Law Dictionary defines encroach as: "To enter by gradual steps or stealth into the possessions or rights of another; to trespass or intrude. To gain or intrude unlawfully upon the lands, property, or authority of another."
Now consider the people who masquerade as "government." They agreed to follow their Constitution. To what extent do they do this? And to what extent do they respect other persons or their property? Could it be that so-called "government" is simply common law turned upside-down?
The Code of Terra Libra
(1) Free Sovereign Citizens own their own lives, minds, bodies, and labor, and may do with them anything that doesn't violate the equal rights of others. This principle of individual sovereignty or self-ownership is the foundation for all legitimate property.
(2) Free Sovereign Citizens have the right to own property, which consists of all possessions acquired without coercing others. They respect the equal right of others to own property, which forms the basis for productive and cooperative human relationships.
(3) No individual, group, or majority has the right to initiate or threaten force, fraud, violence, or theft against Free Sovereign Citizens or their property.
(4) Free Sovereign Citizens have a right to choose whether to communicate or associate with others. These rights of speech and privacy follow directly from the principle of individual sovereignty or self-ownership.
(5) Free Sovereign Citizens have the right to associate with others and to enter into agreements and contracts. For a contract between Free Sovereign Citizens to be valid, it needs to be entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally.
(6) Free Sovereign Citizens have the right to produce and exchange property, and to own the products of their labor and thought. No individual, group, or majority has a right to the labor, ideas, production, or property of a Free Sovereign Citizen, or any part thereof, without prior consent or agreement.
(7) Free Sovereign Citizens have the right to defend and protect themselves and their property against coercive aggression, and to contract with others to assist them. The authority of voluntarily-chosen agents to defend or protect Citizens and/or their property is strictly limited to that defense or protection.
(8) Free Sovereign Citizens consider a crime to occur only when there is a damaged person or property. Therefore, there is no such thing as a "victimless crime," and no Free Sovereign Citizen can commit a crime simply by disobeying the arbitrary rules of tyrants or coercive organizations.
(9) To be legitimate, courts and trials must be based on voluntary association and agreement, rather than on coercion. However, anyone who infringes on the person or property of another may be subject to a requirement for restitution by the damaged person.
(10) Free Sovereign Citizens recognize that social order and cooperation develop spontaneously in the absence of coercion. They also recognize that leadership by example and productive effort is more beneficial than leadership by force, violence, compulsion, or fear.
(11) The principles stated in this Code apply to all Free Sovereign Citizens without regard to age, race, religion, philosophy, background, birthplace, geographic location, gender, or sexual preference.
(12) For a right to be valid its exercise may not impose a positive obligation on another; it only depends on others not taking coercive actions. Free Sovereign Citizens respect the equal rights of other Citizens, and therefore do not expect others to contribute to their interests, except through voluntary transactions or contributions.
Notice that the Terra Libra Code is an extension of the two basic common laws.
The Distinction Between Free and Unfree
[This section is extracted from an article by Alfred Adask in the Nov/Dec 1992 issue of AntiShyster.]
•" On page 1238 of Black's Law Dictionary (Revised 4th Edition) we find the entry: "OMNES HOMINES AUT LIBERI SUNT AUT SERVI. All men are freemen or slaves. Inst. 1, 3, pr.; Fleta, 1. 1, c. 1, Sect. 2." •This Latin dictum declares you must be either a "freeman" or a "slave." Mutually exclusive categories. No middle ground. If you're not one, you must be the other. It's an interesting notion, but does this obscure Latin phrase have any current relevance to you and me? •Inst. 1, 3, pr." is a
reference to Justinian's Institutes, a treatise on Roman Law compiled under the direction of Emperor Justinian, and first published in AD 533. This tells us that the freeman/slave dichotomy dates back at least 1,400 years in Western civilization and legal tradition. •The second reference - "Fleta, 1. 1, c. 1, Sect. 2." - refers to an ancient treatise on the laws of England, called Fleta and written during the reign of Edward I in the late 13th Century or early 14th century. So the 6th Century Roman dictum of "slave or freeman" was still honored 800 years later in Fleta and, presumably, in the law of 14th Century England. •Black's defines "free" as: "Not subject to legal constraint of another. Unconstrained; having power to follow the dictates of his own will. Not subject to the dominion of another. Not compelled to involuntary servitude. Used in this sense as opposed to 'slave'... Enjoying full civic rights... " •Black's defines "freeman" as: "A person in the possession and enjoyment of all the civil and political rights according to the people under a free government. In Roman law, it denoted one who was either born free or emancipated, and was the opposite of 'slave.' In feudal law, it designated an allodial proprietor, as distinguished from a vassal or feudal tenant. (And so in Pennsylvania colonial law. Fry's Election Case, 71 Pa. 308, 10 Am. Rep. 698.) In old English law, the word described a freeholder or tenant by free services; one who was not a villein [slave of a feudal lord]. In modern legal phraseology, it is the appellation of a member of a city or borough having the right of suffrage, or a member of any municipal corporation invested with full civic right." [An allodial proprietor or freeholder has an inalienable right to property. Someone whose property is subject to property tax is a vassal or feudal tenant.] •"Full civic right" suggests a person who enjoys all political rights, including the right to hold all public offices. In America, today, only 0.3% of the population - lawyers - can hold office in the judicial branch of government and the other 99.7% of us are denied that civic right. Taken together, the definition of "freemen" and the Roman dictum of freeman/slave dichotomy suggests that the only legal "freemen" in America are licensed lawyers, and conversely, the other 99.7% of us are "slaves." Not a cheery thought. But what do lawyers have that we don't? Education. Knowledge. And what does the Bible say? "My people perish from lack of knowledge." Better start studying, folks. •Interesting to see how the 6th Century Roman concept of freeman/slave moved right along through feudal times, to old English law, and on to colonial Pennsylvania. That means the Roman legal concept of "freeman" not only crossed Europe and eight centuries to reach 14th Century England. It later crossed the Atlantic and four more centuries to appear in Pennsylvania law somewhere around 1700. •Article I, Section 2 of the Bill of Rights of the 1869 Texas State Constitution says, "All freemen, when they form a compact [voluntary agreement or contract], have equal rights; and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments or privileges." So the term "freeman" was still in use and clearly part of American Law, as far west as Texas and as recently as 1869 - just over a hundred years ago. •[Article I (Bill of Rights), Section 2 of the Texas Constitution also states: "All political power is
inherent in the people, and free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith on the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform, or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."] •If the legal term "freeman" was sufficiently resilient to cross one ocean, two continents, and thirteen centuries, it doesn't take a great deal of faith or imagination to suppose the Roman freeman/slave dictum might still carry some weight in today's American legal system. Which means that ancient, obscure Roman dictum still has relevance to your life and mine. •Black's defines "slave" as: "A person who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another... One who is under the power of a master, and who belongs to him; so that the master may sell and dispose of his person, of his industry, and of his labor, without his being able to do anything, have anything, or acquire anything, but what must belong to his master... ""
[Reprinted (with minor changes) with permission from the AntiShyster, PO Box 540786. Dallas, TX 75354-0786 - (214) 559-7957 - annual subscription $25.]
According to Arthur M. Hogue, "Medieval English common law, like Roman law, recognized only two great classes of men - free and unfree." Freemen and slaves. Hale v. Henkel makes a distinction between the individual and the corporation - the freeman and the slave?
"There is a clear distinction in this particular case between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.
Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the State. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its
charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its charter." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).
Particularly note, that the rights of the individual (freeman), precede the organization of the state. The common-law rights of the individual are senior to any contrary statutes or regulations. The people who masquerade as so-called "government" have used various means (covered below) to trick their victims to unwittingly submit to statutory jurisdiction.
Common Law Jurisdiction vs. Statutory Jurisdiction
It is possible for an individual or company to operate according to the basic principles of freedom inherent in human nature. Most fundamentally, these are the rights to own property, to engage in voluntary exchange, and the sanctity of contract. These are also basic common law rights. These principles are in accordance with the U.S. Constitution as intended by the American Founding Fathers. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution states: "No State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts." The individual's right to contract is unlimited and no State may interfere with that right.
Very few Americans know that they have a fundamental choice: To live their lives and conduct their businesses under common law jurisdiction or under statutory jurisdiction. Common law is the law of the land, the law of the Constitution. Statutory law is legislated law. Richard Maybury refers to the two kinds of law as scientific law and political law.
The IRS makes this distinction between the two kinds of law:
"1. Common law comprises the body of principles and rules of action relating to government and security of persons and property which derive their authority solely from usages and customs or from judgments and decrees of courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs.
2. Statutory law refers to laws enacted and established by a legislative body." IRS Manual, page 5041.1 Section 222.1.
Much of the original U.S. common law has been codified in a single Federal statute, the Uniform Commercial Code.
"The Code is complementary to the Common Law, which remains in force, except where displaced by the code." UCC 1-103.6.
The UCC provides the mechanism for making the choice between common law jurisdiction and statutory jurisdiction. It also states that the failure to make the choice results in the loss of common law rights.
"When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date." UCC 1-207.9.
"The Sufficiency of the Reservation - Any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights, is sufficient, such as "without prejudice."" UCC 1-207.4.
The specific method for reserving your common law rights - for choosing to operate under common law jurisdiction - is to write below your signature "Without Prejudice UCC 1-207." You could use this phrase on your driver's license, on bank signature cards, and on contracts.
However, the people who masquerade as "government" may claim that any of the following subjects you to statutory jurisdiction:
•The 14th Amendment made you a "U.S. citizen" - as opposed to an American Sovereign or a citizen of one of the 50 states. •Having a birth certificate •Using a social security number. •Registering as a voter. •Having filed a federal tax return. •Having a driver's license. •Having a vehicle registration. •Having a government marriage certificate. •Having children in a government school. •Having registered as a voter. •Having received a professional license (attorney, doctor, architect, engineer, etc.) •Being a director of a corporation. •Etc.
The people who masquerade as "government" may claim that all the above are "government benefits" which subject you to their jurisdiction. Several organizations provide services involving the systematic revocation of all the above and declaring your sovereignty. We've developed an "Affidavit of Truth" (price $49) to achieve the same objective.
Once you've established your status as a sovereign or state citizen, you then operate under common law jurisdiction, and you're no longer subject to statutory jurisdiction.
One of the reasons for creating a Pure Contract Trust is that it is a common law entity not subject to statutory jurisdiction. The Trust then can do or own all the things you don't want to be subject to statutory jurisdiction. Many people simply don't want to be bothered with all the hassle it takes to become a sovereign. Of course, even if you do become a sovereign, it's usually worth it to also use a Pure Contract Trust to keep certain assets and activities legally separate from yourself. In fact, if you do become a
sovereign, this may put you on some government black list, therefore it may be especially prudent to use a Trust.
Practical Considerations in the Application of Your Common Law Rights
There are different approaches to applying your individual rights under common law. Which combination of approaches you use depends on your particular situation and preferences.
For example, some people prefer to make very public their intentions, status, and actions rights from the start. Some people believe that as a matter of moral principle it's important to fully disclose in advance to various bureaucrats exactly what they think and do. This is certainly an honorable viewpoint to hold, and many people who are quite freedom-oriented subscribe to this methodology. With respect to disclosure of facts, this method parallels that of many philosophies of civil disobedience - which often hold that assertion of whatever right you are claiming must be fully disclosed and public to be properly and morally claimed.
Another approach is to think and do as you wish - of course, morally and properly according to individual rights principles based in common law. When confronted by a bureaucrat who might want to infringe on your common law rights, you can then make a more open and public assertion of your rights.
If appropriate, you could choose some middle ground between "full public disclosure in advance" and "waiting to be confronted before asserting your rights." This approach does not necessarily mean rights are forfeited because you didn't give COMPLETELY LOUD disclosure in advance. How can this be done?
As a declaration of intentions you could, for example, use our "Affidavit of Truth" [price: $49.00] by filing it with the County Recorder. For many people, this may be a good summary of their state of mind with regard to retaining, reserving, and using (when desired) individual rights secured by common law.
The reason this represents a middle ground between full disclosure to bureaucrats and no disclosure at all is that the act of filing the document with the County Recorder makes this declaration of your state of mind a matter of public record.
Higher profile is to send such a document (or similar declarations) directly to various bureaucrats. This may suit you better if it is morally important to you to give full accounting and disclosure to your enemies, no matter how much they may harm you. Another circumstance in which you may consider direct confrontation is when you are being attacked anyway. In this case, they already are after you and you may get better
results by showing the bureaucrats very clearly that you are not "easy pickings" and that coming after you will cost them dearly in terms of time, effort, and money.
No public disclosure at all to assert your individual rights under common law may work well for you sometimes. In this case, being discrete about your affairs may reduce the chances of attack against you to nearly zero.
Public recording of your state of mind with the County Recorder does increase chances of attack against you some, but in many cases probably not much. There are thousands of Counties in the United States. Consider using a County Recorder some distance from where you spend most of your time. If you do that, the chances of any bureaucrat who might infringe on your individual common law rights ever noticing that you are in fact asserting those rights may well be close to zero!
U.S. Court Decisions
Today, the court decisions that are published and available in the law libraries, and thus become a part of common law, are almost always appellate court decisions, not trial court decisions. The U.S. Supreme Court and the state Supreme Courts are part of the U.S. appellate court system. The appellate court opinions that appear in published form in the law library follow a format as follows:
1.The Facts, which are taken from the lower court's determination. 2.The Issues, which are presented by the appealing parties. 3.The Ruling or Holding, which is the answer to the issues. 4.The Reasoning or Rationale, which is the discussion.
Most judges try hard to be consistent with decisions that they or a higher court have made. This consistency is very important to the common law tradition. For this reason, if you can find a previous court decision that rules your way on facts similar to your situation, you have a good shot at persuading a judge to follow that case and decide in your favor.
There are two basic principles to understand when you want to persuade a judge to rule your way. One is called "precedent authority," and the other is called "persuasive authority. "
Under precedent authority, using the principle of stare decisis (to stand by the decision), means that the court is compelled to uphold the earlier decision if there is nothing that makes the earlier decision different from the one being decided. If the earlier decision was a U.S. Supreme Court case, that case is binding authority on all courts in this country.
As a general rule, persuasive authority means the higher the court, the more persuasive its opinion. However, in the absence of a precedent case, such as the Lee Marvin case, which was the first major case establishing the principle of "palimony," the Marvin case was considered persuasive authority by many out-of-state courts, although that case was not binding outside of California.
What bearing does all this have on Hale v. Henkel? We know that Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U. S. Supreme Court. Since it was the U. S. Supreme Court, the case is binding on all courts of the land, until another U.S. Supreme Court case says it isn't. Has another U.S. Supreme Court case overturned Hale v. Henkel? The answer is "No." As a matter of fact, since 1905, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by all of the federal and state appellate court systems a total of 1,600 times! Remember that in nearly every instance when a case is cited, it has an impact on the precedential authority of the cited case.
How does that compare with other previously decided U.S. Supreme Court cases? Although a careful study has not been made, initial observations have shown that only one other case (the Dartmouth College case - see Report #PCT08: The Sanctity of Contract) have surpassed Hale v. Henkel in the number of times it has been cited by the courts. None of the various issues of this case has ever been overruled.
On the persuasive side, in Hale v. Henkel, it was the U.S. Supreme Court that was speaking, the Law of the Land. How much more persuasive can a case be!
One of the most popular tools available in the law libraries is called Shepard's Citations. Shepard's Citations is a series of publications, encompassing volumes, which identify all federal and state appellate cases. Shepardizing a case is a part of legal research with which all lawyers and judges are familiar. It is a process by which the present status of a case is evaluated as to how it has been affected by later cases; and the process of locating cases that might otherwise have been overlooked. A citation is simply a reference to a legal authority. A published or reported case is identified: (1) by the publication in which it appears, (2) by the volume number of that publication, and (3) by the page on which the case begins. Thus, the citation of Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, identifies the case as being on page 43 of volume 201 of United States Reports, which means the cases of the U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore, if you see a case listed in a Shepard's book under page 43 of volume 201 United States Reports, and the listed case is 934 F. 2d 743, then the cited case is 201 U.S. 43, Hale v. Henkel, and the citing case is 934 F 2d 743, because this case is citing Hale v. Henkel in its reasoning and ruling.
Here are some examples of the types of letter abbreviations you will find next to a citing case. Again, remember that a citing case is the case that has cited the case in which you are interested.
cc (connected case) - Different case from case cited but arising out of same subject matter or intimately connected therewith.
r (reversed) - Same case reversed on appeal.
d (distinguished) - Case at bar different either in law, or fact from case cited for reasons given.
j (dissenting opinion) - Citation in dissenting opinion.
o (overruled) - Ruling in cited case expressly overruled.
p (parallel) - Citing case substantially alike in respect of facts, issues, ruling, and reasoning of cited case.
Therefore, by the use of the letter abbreviations, it is not difficult, and extremely time efficient, to run down the citing cases of Hale v. Henkel and determine how each citing case was treated in its reference to Hale v. Henkel.
If you're interested in obtaining a complimentary copy of a Shepard's guide to legal research, call (719) 488-3000, or write to Shepard's, PO Box 35300, Colorado Springs, CO 80935-3530, requesting free copies of their publications, "How to Shepardize" and "Questions and Answers."
Court Rulings Contrary to the U.S. Constitution
America is unique in the world in that it has a constitution which is the senior law of the land and severely limits what government may do. Also, all government officials are supposed to swear an oath to uphold their constitution. Furthermore, the constitution includes a procedure for amending it. No court - including the U.S. Supreme Court - has the legal power to amend the constitution. This means that, applying a strict legal and logical test, only those court decisions that conform with the constitution are valid.
The practice, however, is very different. Generally, judges seem to operate on the basis that they'll do whatever they can get away with.
As indicated in The Economic Rape of America: What You Can Do About It, most lawyers are of questionable character - to put it mildly! Most judges are lawyers wearing black robes. Furthermore, most of them are also political appointees. In my opinion, a case can be made that American judges are the worst criminals in the world. If you'd like some evidence to back up my opinion, I suggest you read With Justice for None by Gerry Spence.
Conclusion
Ideally, you need to conduct your affairs in such a way that you don't have to go to court. It's the enemy's territitory - not a good place to fight! First, you attempt to organize matters so the enemy isn't aware of you as a threat or potential target. Second, you take measures that, should you become visible to the enemy as a potential target, will induce the enemy to decide that you'll be a very tough nut to crack, and there are much easier pickings elsewhere.
The Pure Contract Trust and the Affidavit of Truth are tools to assist you to achieve the above two objectives.
The enemy wants to rob you. That's how he gets his income and makes a living. Ultimately, it's your own determination, ingenuity, and resourcefulness that will deflect the enemy to seek out an easier mark.
Fortunately, if you're well prepared, it's relatively easy to win!
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,947
Reaction score
5,072
Well Taezzar I read that whole damn thing and it looks like the stuff the lieyers like to present as the common law. It does allow me to make a very important point that freemen won't be free very long if they relinquish control of the law.

This is where we find ourselves today the BAR card lieyers managed to bad mouth common law courts and shove them in the dustbin of history so they could take over and give us the crap that passes for law today. They say that we still have common law courts, but we know that is just one more lie.

It misses the main point of the common law and that is the Judge must be 12 freemen. In common law it is called a trial by jury, where the jury judges both guilt and the law. Is this a good law and is it properly applied. The Justice keeps the order in the court so there is an equal footing.

The structure of control is the most important thing and the lieyers love to pay lip service to all our freeman stuff as long as we let them control the process.
 
Last edited:

Strawboss

Apocaloptimist
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,820
Reaction score
18,028
Where did that lawyer dude go?

He never did answer my questions about the 2nd amendment and some other stuff...
 

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Mother Lode
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
37,555
Reaction score
60,452
Location
Qmerica
One law should be that all laws should be written so that anyone with an 8th grade education can understand the law, or it is invalid.
They need teach civics again. If we're lucky it might even cure some liberalism pathogens early in life.
 

Goldhedge

Retired
Mother Lode
Midas Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
61,620
Reaction score
130,815
Location
Rocky Mountains
this is rooted in common law - contracts


Screen Shot 2019-10-29 at 7.15.20 PM.png
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
636
Reaction score
134
One law should be that all laws should be written so that anyone with an 8th grade education can understand the law, or it is invalid.

GODZILLA,

This is the law. And, all law COMPLIES with this law.

Even the Common Law is WRITTEN case law.

With Respect,

Snoop
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
636
Reaction score
134
They need teach civics again. If we're lucky it might even cure some liberalism pathogens early in life.

Newmisty,

THAT IS PRECISELY THE SOLUTION!

CIVICS NEEDS TO BE TAUGHT!

If Civics were taught, everyone would know that:

1. Every law is in writing;

2. Every law is MADE by those who we ELECT to MAKE the laws (ELECTED city council members, ELECTED county commissioners, ELECTED state lawmakers, ELECTED federal lawmakers and ELECTED higher state judges, ELECTED higher federal judges).

3. Every law is ENFORCED by those who we ELECT to ENFORCE the laws (ELECTED city police chief, ELECTED county sheriff, ELECTED state governor, ELECTED President).

4. Any statute that REALLY violates the Constitution will be struck down by the courts.

5. ELECTIONS insure that ELECTED lawmakers and judges who pass laws that REALLY violate the Constitution will be thrown out of office by "We the People".

6. "We the People" (through state referendum or by a super-majority vote in Congress) have the power to change ("AMEND") the Constitution to make it better. By the same processes, "We the People" have the power to REPEAL a provision in the Constitution to make it better.

7. So, through our ELECTIONS and through the Constitutional AMENDMENT/REPEAL process, "We the People" ALWAYS have the final say in WHO our lawmakers are, WHAT the laws govern us and WHO our law enforcement officers are.

CIVICS is the answer.

With Respect,

Snoop
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,947
Reaction score
5,072
Newmisty,

THAT IS PRECISELY THE SOLUTION!

CIVICS NEEDS TO BE TAUGHT!

If Civics were taught, everyone would know that:

1. Every law is in writing;

2. Every law is MADE by those who we ELECT to MAKE the laws (ELECTED city council members, ELECTED county commissioners, ELECTED state lawmakers, ELECTED federal lawmakers and ELECTED higher state judges, ELECTED higher federal judges).

3. Every law is ENFORCED by those who we ELECT to ENFORCE the laws (ELECTED city police chief, ELECTED county sheriff, ELECTED state governor, ELECTED President).

4. Any statute that REALLY violates the Constitution will be struck down by the courts.

5. ELECTIONS insure that ELECTED lawmakers and judges who pass laws that REALLY violate the Constitution will be thrown out of office by "We the People".

6. "We the People" (through state referendum or by a super-majority vote in Congress) have the power to change ("AMEND") the Constitution to make it better. By the same processes, "We the People" have the power to REPEAL a provision in the Constitution to make it better.

7. So, through our ELECTIONS and through the Constitutional AMENDMENT/REPEAL process, "We the People" ALWAYS have the final say in WHO our lawmakers are, WHAT the laws govern us and WHO our law enforcement officers are.

CIVICS is the answer.

With Respect,

Snoop

Your courts are not common law courts.
Our common law courts have the Jury of twelve as the Judge of both the law and the guilt or innocence of accused party.
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
636
Reaction score
134
Bigjon,

That is precisely the system we have in CRIMINAL cases.

If you knew CIVICS, you would already know this.

Judges are merely referees between the two opposing sides and makes sure the rules of evidence and the rules procedure are followed by BOTH sides. Nothing more.

The jury ALONE (not the judge or the prosecutor) applies the law that is made by our ELECTED lawmakers.

And, the jury ALONE (not the judge or the prosecutor) determines the guilt of innocence of the defendant.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE COMMON LAW (WRITTEN CASE LAW) IS APPLIED (USED) IN EVERY COURT IN THE UNITED STATES.

THAT MAKES ALL OF OUR COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES "COMMON LAW COURTS".

With Respect,

Snoop
 

arminius

Argentate Bluster
Sr Midas Sup +++
Platinum Bling
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
6,964
Reaction score
11,267
More total bullshit from the snoopster. Common law is not case law. Period.

You'd like it to be so you and those of your ilk can make more money screwing the population.
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,947
Reaction score
5,072
Bigjon,

That is precisely the system we have in CRIMINAL cases.

If you knew CIVICS, you would already know this.

Judges are merely referees between the two opposing sides and makes sure the rules of evidence and the rules procedure are followed by BOTH sides. Nothing more.

The jury ALONE (not the judge or the prosecutor) applies the law that is made by our ELECTED lawmakers.

And, the jury ALONE (not the judge or the prosecutor) determines the guilt of innocence of the defendant.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE COMMON LAW (WRITTEN CASE LAW) IS APPLIED (USED) IN EVERY COURT IN THE UNITED STATES.

THAT MAKES ALL OF OUR COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES "COMMON LAW COURTS".

With Respect,

Snoop


I wish you were right. It appears you are under some kind of delusion about how our courts operate.
Please tell it to the Bundy's who appear to be going back for a third or fourth trial for bullshit lieyer crap as your lieyer colleague's are appealing the Bundy mistrial.
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
636
Reaction score
134
THE UNDERSTANDABLE MISTAKE THAT AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS MADE ABOUT THE "COMMON LAW" WHICH RESULTED IN THEM BELIEVING IN AN IMAGINARY, UNWRITTEN BODY OF LAW WHICH NEVER EXISTED AND THE OUTRAGE THAT UNDERSTANDABLE MISTAKE CAUSED IN THE AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY COMMUNITY

"FACT: Common law" simply means "CASE LAW" WRITTEN BY JUDGES (as opposed to statutes or constitutions WRITTEN BY OTHERS).

THE PUBLISHED LEGAL DEFINITION OF THE "COMMON LAW"

The first definition of "common law" given in Black's Law Dictionary, 10th edition, 2014 [the current edition], is"The body of law derived from JUDICIAL DECISIONS, rather than from statutes or constitutions; [synonym] CASELAW, [contrast] STATUTORY LAW". ... In this connotation, "common law" distinguishes the authority [lawmaker] that promulgated [makes] a law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/common_law
Common law is law that is derived from JUDICIAL DECISIONS instead of from statutes. AMERICAN COURTS originally fashioned common law rules based on English common law until the AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM was sufficiently mature TO CREATE COMMON LAW rules either from direct precedent or by analogy to comparable areas of decided law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
In law, common law (also known as judicial precedent or JUDGE-MADE LAW, or CASE LAW) is the body of law CREATED BY JUDGES and similar quasi-judicial tribunals by virtue of being stated in written opinions.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The defining characteristic of “common law” is that it arises as precedent. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, A COMMON LAW COURT looks to past precedential DECISIONS OF RELEVANT COURTS, and synthesizes the principles of those past cases as applicable to the current facts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is usually bound to follow the reasoning used in the PRIOR DECISION (a principle known as stare decisis).

https://www.britannica.com/topic/common-law
Common law, also called Anglo-American law, is the body of customary law, BASED UPON JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND EMBODIED IN REPORTS OF DECIDED CASES, that has been administered by the common-law courts of England since the Middle Ages. From it has evolved THE TYPE OF LEGAL SYSTEM NOW FOUND IN THE UNITED STATES and in most of the member states of the Commonwealth (formerly the British Commonwealth of Nations).

https://legaldictionary.net/common-law/
Common law is a term used to refer to LAW THAT IS DEVELOPED THROUGH DECISIONS OF THE COURT, rather than by relying solely on statutes or regulations. Also known as “CASE LAW, or “CASE PRECEDENT,” common law provides a contextual background for many legal concepts. Common laws vary depending on the jurisdiction, but in general, the ruling of a judge is often used as a basis for deciding future similar cases.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/common-law/
Common law is the system of deciding cases that originated in England and which WAS LATER ADOPTED IN THE U.S. Common law is based on precedent (legal principles developed in earlier CASE LAW) instead of statutory laws. It is the traditional law of an area or region CREATED BY JUDGES when deciding individual disputes or cases. Common law changes over time. THE U.S. IS A COMMON LAW COUNTRY.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/common-law
The body of law developed in England primarily from JUDICIAL DECISIONS based on custom and precedent, UNWRITTEN in statute or code, and CONSTITUTING THE BASIS OF the English legal system and of THE [LEGAL] SYSTEM IN ALL OF THE U.S. except Louisiana

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/common_law
LAW DEVELOPED BY JUDGES. ...through their decisions and opinions (ALSO CALLED CASE LAW) (as opposed to statutes promulgated by legislatures and regulations promulgated by the executive branch. ...Synonyms. CASE LAW, DECISIONAL LAW, JUDGE-MADE LAW, PRECEDENTIAL LAW.

https://www.ncpedia.org/common-law
Common Law is the system of legal rules developed over the centuries by English JUDGES IN THEIR DECISIONS ON CASES.

https://legaldictionary.net/common-law/
Common law is a term used to refer to LAW THAT IS DEVELOPED THROUGH DECISIONS OF THE COURT, rather than by relying solely on statutes or regulations. Also known as “CASE LAW,” or “CASE PRECEDENT,” common law provides a contextual background for many legal concepts. Common laws vary depending on the jurisdiction, but in general, the ruling of a judge is often used as a basis for deciding future similar cases.

"Common law" ("case law") is STILL the single most commonly-used form of law in the United States today. Common law is also BY FAR the single largest component of law in the United States in terms of sheer volume. Just look at the book shelves in any law library.

HOW THE "COMMON LAW" IS DEFINED BY THE "COMMON LAW" ITSELF!

.ACTUAL PROOF FROM THE "COMMON LAW" ITSELF!
State v. Quested: THE COMMON LAW IS DEFINED AS "[T]HE BODY OF LAW DERIVED FROM JUDICIAL DECISIONS, RATHER THAN FROM STATUTES OR CONSTITUTIONS, CASE LAW. Black's Law Dictionary 334 (10th ed.2014)." (in the 7th paragraph of Justice Johnson's "Dissent", at about 75% through the text HERE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4145277851828805289&q="State+v.+QUESTED"+"common+law"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

MORE ACTUAL PROOF FROM THE "COMMON L:AW" ITSELF:
State v. Hyde: "THE COMMON LAW IS DEFINED AS "[T]HE BODY OF LAW DERIVED FROM JUDICIAL DECISIONS, RATHER THAN FROM STATUTES OR CONSTITUTIONS. CASE LAW. Black's Law Dictionary 293 (8th ed. 2004)." (in the 7th paragraph, at about 75% through the text HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7712646074919813387&q="State+v.+Hyde"+"common+law"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006


THE REASON FOR ALL THE CONFUSION:
But, amateur legal theorists correctly note that the "common law" was ALSO sometimes called,"unwritten law". SO, THEY ASK, "IF THE 'COMMON LAW' WAS ALSO SOMETIMES CALLED, 'UNWRITTEN LAW', THEN HOW CAN THE 'COMMON LAW' POSSIBLY BE 'WRITTEN' BY JUDGES?" That is a fair question.

SCROLL DOWN TO ABOUT 30% THROUGH THE TEXT ON THE WHITE BACKGROUND HERE. http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/CommonLaw.aspx. (QUOTE BEGINS) "Because it is NOT WRITTEN by elected politicians BUT, RATHER BY JUDGES, it is also referred to as unwritten law or lex non scripta." (QUOTE ENDS)

Indeed, that is precisely the way that the Supreme Court Of The United States uses the term, "unwritten law" (referring to laws written by judges as opposed to laws written by elected lawmakers). In Erie v. Tompkins, the Supreme Court Of The United States quoted an earlier decision and wrote, "In exercising jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship [FEDERAL COURTS] NEED NOT... APPLY THE UNWRITTEN LAW OF THE STATE AS DECLARED BY ITS HIGHEST COURT [IN A WRITTEN COURT DECISION].... .[T]HEY ARE FREE TO EXERCISE AN INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AS TO WHAT THE COMMON LAW OF THE STATE IS [USING THE TERM, "UNWRITTEN LAW" AND "COMMON LAW" INTERCHANGEABLY.].. . " (iIn the 7th full paragraph at about 15% through the text of the page HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4671607337309792720&q="Erie+v.+Tompkins"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

These words from the Supreme Court Of The United States PROVE THAT THE TERM, "UNWRITTEN LAW" REALLY MEANS LAWS WRITTEN BY JUDGES (AS OPPOSED TO STATUTES OR CONSTITUTIONS WRITTEN BY OTHERS.). "Lex non scripta" is Latin for "unwritten law". But, this term also means laws written by judges rather than laws written by others, as this.

AN ANCIENT EXPLANATION OF THIS CONFUSION IN ANCIENT TIMES
The ancient English text below explains what "unwritten law" or "Lex non scripta"(in Latin) actually means.

SCROLL DOWN TO ABOUT 45% THROUGH THE TEXT TO THE PEACH-COLORED BACKGROUND HERE.
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/L/LexNonScripta.aspx

(BEGIN QUOTE)

"... when I call those parts of our laws (lex) non scripta, I DO NOT MEAN AS IF THOSE LAWS WERE ONLY ORAL or communicated from the former ages to the later, merely by word; for ALL THOSE LAWS HAVE THEIR MONUMENTS IN WRITING whereby they are transferred from one age to another, and without which they would soon lose all kind of certainty; for as the civil ... laws have their ... determinations extant in writing; so those laws of England which are not comprised under the titles of acts of parliament, are for the most part extant IN RECORDS of pleas, proceedings and judgments; IN BOOKS OR REPORTS AND JUDICIAL CASES; in tractates of learned men's argument and opinions, preserved from antient (sic) times, and still extant IN WRITING."

(QUOTE ENDS)

FACT: ALL OF THE COMMON LAW IS IN WRITING. THAT IS PRECISELY WHY WE KNOW EVERY SINGLE WORD OF IT TODAY!

HOW THE TERM, "UNWRITTEN LAW", RESULTED IN AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS BELIEVING IN AN IMAGINARY, UNWRITTEN BODY OF LAW THAT NEVER EXISTED:

But, amateur legal theorists mistakenly thought that the term, "unwritten law" meant that the "common law" WAS LITERALLY "UNWRITTEN" ALTOGETHER This resulted in amateur legal theorists simply "MAKING UP" what they thought the common law should be (as long as it was more favorable to them than their perception of the written law). Then, after simply "MAKING UP" what they thought the unwritten "common law" should be, they claimed that the UNWRITTEN common law "has been taken away" BECAUSE ALL MODERN LAW IS WRITTEN AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE POSSIBLY BE "COMMON LAW". They claim that the reason that UNWRITTEN common law was "taken away" was to eliminate all personal freedom and liberty and reduce humanity to slaves. Accordingly, they claim that today's written laws are in direct conflict with the unwritten common law which they believe shielded people from all responsibility and accountability to society as a whole absent injury to another person or that person's property.

ACTUAL PROOF OF THIS MISTAKEN BELIEF:
What follows is an actual written explanation of the UNWRITTEN "common law" based on this very mistake described above (that common law is "UNWRITTEN" law) and based on the mistake that the "common law" is no longer used in today's legal system. This explanation was posted on a website of Karl Lentz, a prominent promoter of this mistaken belief about the law. SCROLL DOWN TO ABOUT 65% THROUGH THE TEXT HERE. https://thesecretpeople.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/karl-lentz-unkommonlaw/


(QUOTE BEGINS)

4 – THE LAW IS UNWRITTEN YET KNOWABLE. It stands on its own and unmodified – inherent/obvious to reasonable humans... .

“NO WRITTEN LAW MAY BE ENFORCED BY THE GOVERNMENT UNLESS IT CONFORMS WITH (sic) CERTAIN UNWRITTEN UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS, MORALITY, AND JUSTICE THAT TRANSCEND HUMAN LEGAL SYSTEMS [AS IF THE "COMMON LAW" WAS NOT OF HUMAN ORIGIN]. " http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rule+of+law

“…[The common law is] UNWRITTEN, UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES..." or maxims, established long before any civilizations, governments, or corporations were even thought of…[AS IF THE "COMMON LAW" PREDATED THE JUDGES WHO ACTUALLY WROTE IT]"

THUS, UNWRITTEN LAW IS ABOVE (PRIOR TO) AND SUPERIOR TO, ALL OTHER FORMS OF MAN-MADE LAW. "… *****!===>…LAWFUL vs. LEGAL…<===!***** (emphasis in original)

"….On June 30, 1864…, CONGRESS CHANGED beginning with the revenue act of that date, THE REASON OF (SIC) LAW IN AMERICA FROM PERSONAL LIBERTY UNDER THE COMMON LAW TO CIVIL LIBERTY UNDER MUNICIPAL (ROMAN CIVIL LAW), i.e., rules and regulations commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong…[REFLECTING A "TAKING AWAY" OF THE IMAGINARY UNWRITTEN "COMMON LAW" BY MODERN WRITTEN LAW] "

(QUOTE ENDS)

Thus, amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that the "common law" is literally "unwritten" altogether, that it is morally and legally superior to today's written law and that today's written law is in direct conflict with the unwritten "common law". But, none of this is so. Unknown to amateur legal theorists, today's written law INCLUDES THE COMMON LAW which is STILL "case law" written by judges and which is still being made by judges every single day by judges all over the globe.

THE OUTRAGE CAUSED BY THIS UNDERSTANDABLE M(STAKE
Regardless, the foregoing mistaken beliefs resulted in an outrage in the amateur legal theory community over an imaginary injustice which never occurred (the "taking away") of an imaginary, UNWRITTEN body of law which never existed (the imaginary UNWRITTEN common law) . As a result of these mistaken beliefs, amateur legal theorists now demand a "return" to the "UNWRITTEN" common law (WHICH NEVER EXISTED), to common law courts (WHICH ALL MODERN COURTS STILL ARE), to common law court jurisdiction, to common law rules of court, to common law procedure, to common law motions, to common law pleadings, to common law rulings and so forth.


PROOF OF DEMANDS FOR A "RETURN" TO THE UNWRITTEN COMMON LAW (WHICH NEVER EXISTED) AND TO COMMON LAW COURTS (WHICH ALL MODERN COURTS STILL ARE TODAY):
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nVOCbxuQ-Y

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDwmGbAFaso
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zky4TRz5hU
4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr3lpMA58EE
5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0ecNc0ZLAU
6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET9Ntr-JL44
7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU9ifWnloDo


SO, WHAT DOES ALL OF THIS MEAN TO US TODAY IN MOST COUNTRIES THAT WERE ONCE PART OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE?

1). "COMMON LAW" IS SIMPLY "CASE LAW" WRITTEN BY JUDGES. NOTHING MORE. IT IS A BODY OF LAW WHICH BEGAN IN ANCIENT ENGLAND AND CONTINUES TO BE MADE AND CONTINUES TO BE USED BY ALL OF THE COURTS IN ENGLAND AND IN MOST OF THE COUNTRIES THAT WERE ONCE PART OF THE ENGLISH EMPIRE, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND. SEE PROOF HERE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#/media/File:Map_of_the_Legal_systems_of_the_world_(en).png


2). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SEPARATE "COMMON LAW" WHICH IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM "CASE LAW" WRITTEN BY JUDGES. ALL COMMON LAW (BOTH ANCIENT AND MODERN) IS NOTHING BUT "CASE LAW" WRITTEN BY JUDGES. THERE IS NO OTHER TYPE OF COMMON LAW.

3). TODAY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW JURISDICTION" OF A COURT WHICH IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE JURISDICTION OF MODERN COURTS. SO, YOU CANNOT "INVOKE COMMON LAW JURISDICTION" OF A COURT (LIKE FLIPPING A SWITCH). NOTHING ELSE EXISTS (TO FLIP A SWITCH TO). ALL OF TODAY'S COURTS ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM USE & FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW (CASE LAW).

4). TODAY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW COURTS" WHICH ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM TODAY'S MODERN COURTS. ALL OF TODAY'S COURTS ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM USE & FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW (CASE LAW).

5). TODAY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW STANDING" WHICH IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM "STANDING" UNDER TODAY'S MODERN LAW. ALL OF TODAY'S COURTS ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM USE & FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW (CASE LAW).

6). TODAY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW RULES OF COURT" WHICH ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE RULES OF COURT UNDER TODAY'S MODERN LAW. ALL OF TODAY'S COURTS ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM USE & FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW (CASE LAW).

7). TODAY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW PROCEDURE" WHICH IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM COURT PROCEDURE UNDER TODAY'S MODERN LAW. ALL OF TODAY'S COURTS ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM USE & FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW (CASE LAW).

8). TODAY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW MOTIONS" WHICH ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM MOTIONS UNDER TODAY'S MODERN LAW. ALL OF TODAY'S COURTS ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM USE & FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW (CASE LAW).

9). TODAY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW PLEADINGS" (IN USE OR WHICH CAN BE USED) WHICH ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM PLEADINGS UNDER TODAY'S MODERN LAW. TODAY'S MODERN PLEADINGS INCLUDE COMMON LAW PLEADINGS (COMMON LAW CAUSES OF ACTION, COMMON LAW CLAIMS AND COMMON LAW DEFENSES). ALL OF TODAY'S COURTS ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM USE & FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW (CASE LAW).

10). TODAY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW RULINGS" WHICH ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM RULINGS OF MODERN COURTS. THIS IS BECAUSE ALL OF TODAY'S COURTS ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM USE & FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW (CASE LAW).

11). TODAY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SEPARATE "COMMON LAW ANYTHING" WHICH IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM ANY FEATURE OR CHARACTERISTIC OF TODAY'S MODERN JUDICIAL SYSTEM. THIS IS BECAUSE ALL OF TODAY'S COURTS ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM USE & FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW (CASE LAW).

12). "COMMON LAW" (CASE LAW) IS STILL AN INTEGRAL PART OF TODAY'S LEGAL SYSTEM. THIS IS BECAUSE ALL OF TODAY'S COURTS ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM USE & FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW (CASE LAW).

13). "COMMON LAW" IS STILL THE SINGLE MOST COMMON FORM OF LAW USED IN TODAY'S LEGAL SYSTEM.

14). SO, "COMMON LAW" IS NOT SOMETHING SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM TODAY'S LAWS, COMMON LAW IS THE SINGLE LARGEST COMPONENT OF TODAY'S LAWS (IN TERMS OF SHEER VOLUME). JUST LOOK AT THE BOOKSHELVES IN ANY LAW LIBRARY.

15) IT IS TRUE THAT STATUTES (BOTH ANCIENT AND MODERN) HAVE CHANGED MANY AREAS OF THE COMMON LAW (BOTH ANCIENT AND MODERN). BUT. IS ALSO TRUE THAT MANY LEGISLATIVE BODIES (BOTH ANCIENT AND MODERN) HAVE CODIFIED THE COMMON LAW INTO STATUTES (BOTH ANCIENT AND MODERN), THEREBY PRESERVING SOME AREAS OF THE COMMON LAW (BOTH ANCIENT AND MODERN). FURTHERMORE, CONSIDER THIS. VIRTUALLY EVERY STATUTE (BOTH ANCIENT AND MODERN) ITSELF BECOMES THE SUBJECT OF LITIGATION IN THE COURTS AND ALL OF THE WRITTEN DECISIONS IN ALL OF THOSE COURT CASES THEMSELVES ALSO BECOME PART OF THE COMMON LAW. SO, THE BODY OF THE COMMON LAW IS ALWAYS BECOMING LARGER AND IS STILL USED IN AREAS OF THE LAW WHICH ARE ALSO REGULATED BY STATUTE.

16). IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT TODAY THE COURT RULES, PROCEDURES, MOTIONS, PLEADINGS AND THE LIKE ARE NOW GOVERNED BY RULE BOOKS. BUT, LIKE THE "COMMON LAW", THESE REGULATIONS ARE THEMSELVES ALSO WRITTEN BY JUDGES (SUPREME COURT JUSTICES) (OR AT THEIR REQUEST), NOT BY LEGISLATURES. FURTHERMORE, THESE REGULATIONS ARE THEMSELVES ALSO BASED ON PRECEDENT (MOST OF WHICH IS ANCIENT). SO, IN THAT SENSE, THE COMMON LAW STILL EFFECTIVELY GOVERNS MODERN COURT RULES, PROCEDURES, MOTIONS, PLEADINGS AND THE LIKE.

17). THIS MEANS THAT TODAY'S "COMMON LAW" DOES NOT REFUTE, CONTRADICT OR CONFLICT WITH OTHER MODERN LAWS, IT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF TODAY'S LAWS.

18). IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM TODAY'S LAWS, YOU WILL NOT FIND IT IN TODAY'S "COMMON LAW", BECAUSE TODAY'S "COMMON LAW" IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF TODAY'S LAWS.

Any understanding to the contrary is mistaken.

BEWARE OF THESE OTHER FAKE LEGAL EXPERTS (all of whom have a 100% failure rate when representing themselves and when pretending to represent others).

For the hoaxes of ROD CLASS (who has LOST 80 consecutive administrative and judicial cases in a row), click here.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99447-Rod-Class-his-many-hoaxes


For the hoaxes of EDDIE CRAIG (who has LOST every case in which he has ever been involved), click here.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99564-Eddie-Craig-the-former-deputy-sheriff-hoax


For the hoaxes of ANTHONY WILLIAMS (who has LOST 90+ consecutive cases in a row), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...x-(Anthony-Troy-Williams)&p=231850#post231850
For the hoaxes of CARL MILLER (who has LOST 28 consecutive cases in a row), click here.https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?131638-Carl-Miller-Richard-Champion


For the hoaxes of DEBRA JONES (who have never won or lost a single case), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...uot&highlight=Debra+Jones&p=230352#post230352;\


For the hoaxes of DEBORAH TAVARES (who has never won or lost a single case), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...ather-fires-depopulation)&p=226016#post226016
 
Last edited:

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,947
Reaction score
5,072
The common law is for people who have claims against some other people. It is where men meet to settle their disputes. It is not a place for fictions to put on a play act.
The court is all on the same level and the Justice presides over the rules from a table, while the trial is judged by 12 men who try both the facts of the case and the merits of the law.

Case law is for lieyers.


 
Last edited:

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,947
Reaction score
5,072
I have no problem with written law. Seems logical that it should be written, as that allows a more concise presentation of what the law really is.
I do not have a problem with judge made law, as long as our common law allows Juries to Judge the guilt or innocence based on the facts and the Juries acceptance of the merits of the law.
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
636
Reaction score
134
Bigjon,

YOUR COMMENT: I have no problem with written law. Seems logical that it should be written, as that allows a more concise presentation of what the law really is.

MY RESPONSE: Agreed. That is precisely why all law is in written form.

YOUR COMMENT: I do not have a problem with judge made law,

MY RESPONSE: Remember, trial judges (who share court rooms with juries and defendants) are the lowest ranking judges. They are not authorized to make the common law. They are obligated to follow the common law and nothing more. The common law is made by judges at the court of appeals or by the justices at the applicable Supreme Court (state or federal).

YOUR COMMENT: as long as our common law allows Juries to Judge the guilt or innocence based on the facts

MY RESPONSE: In our common law republic, juries determine the guilt or innocent of a defendant based on the facts IN CRIMINAL CASES, not in traffic cases (which are not criminal cases). Juries also determine liability or non-liability of the defendant IN CIVIL CASES, LIKE AUTOMOBILE NEGLIGENCE CASES when more than a certain amount is sought from the defendant in money damages.

YOUR COMMENT: and the Juries acceptance of the merits of the law.

MY RESPONSE: In our common law republic, the juries only determine QUESTIONS OF FACT (guilty or not guilty, liable or not liable). Juries are never asked QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LAW. So, juries do not determine QUESTIONS OF LAW. The trial judge does that.

During the "guilt phase" of a criminal case, the trial judge does not tell the jury what penalties are applicable if they find the defendant guilty. During the "guilt phase" of the case, the trial judge only tells jury enough about the law for them to correctly make their FACTUAL DETERMINATION (guilty or not guilty). In most jurisdictions and with most crimes. juries do nothing else but determine guilt of innocence.
In these jurisdictions and with these crimes, if the jury finds the defendant guilty, the judge sentences the defendant to the punishment prescribed by statute. In these jurisdictions and with these crimes, the only means a jury has to "nullify" anything is to find the defendant innocent of the crime when he is actually guilty of the crime. NOTE THAT THIS IS A FINDING OF FACT, NOT A DETERMINATION OF LAW.

So, whether a jury accepts the applicable law on its merits or not, the only way a jury can "nullify" anything is to find the defendant FACTUALLY innocent when he is actually guilty. NOTE THAT THIS IS A FINDING OF FACT, NOT A DETERMINATION OF LAW.

With Respect,

Snoop
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,947
Reaction score
5,072
Bigjon,

YOUR COMMENT: I have no problem with written law. Seems logical that it should be written, as that allows a more concise presentation of what the law really is.

MY RESPONSE: Agreed. That is precisely why all law is in written form.

YOUR COMMENT: I do not have a problem with judge made law,

MY RESPONSE: Remember, trial judges (who share court rooms with juries and defendants) are the lowest ranking judges. They are not authorized to make the common law. They are obligated to follow the common law and nothing more. The common law is made by judges at the court of appeals or by the justices at the applicable Supreme Court (state or federal).

YOUR COMMENT: as long as our common law allows Juries to Judge the guilt or innocence based on the facts

MY RESPONSE: In our common law republic, juries determine the guilt or innocent of a defendant based on the facts IN CRIMINAL CASES, not in traffic cases (which are not criminal cases). Juries also determine liability or non-liability of the defendant IN CIVIL CASES, LIKE AUTOMOBILE NEGLIGENCE CASES when more than a certain amount is sought from the defendant in money damages.

YOUR COMMENT: and the Juries acceptance of the merits of the law.

MY RESPONSE: In our common law republic, the juries only determine QUESTIONS OF FACT (guilty or not guilty, liable or not liable). Juries are never asked QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LAW. So, juries do not determine QUESTIONS OF LAW. The trial judge does that.

During the "guilt phase" of a criminal case, the trial judge does not tell the jury what penalties are applicable if they find the defendant guilty. During the "guilt phase" of the case, the trial judge only tells jury enough about the law for them to correctly make their FACTUAL DETERMINATION (guilty or not guilty). In most jurisdictions and with most crimes. juries do nothing else but determine guilt of innocence.
In these jurisdictions and with these crimes, if the jury finds the defendant guilty, the judge sentences the defendant to the punishment prescribed by statute. In these jurisdictions and with these crimes, the only means a jury has to "nullify" anything is to find the defendant innocent of the crime when he is actually guilty of the crime. NOTE THAT THIS IS A FINDING OF FACT, NOT A DETERMINATION OF LAW.

So, whether a jury accepts the applicable law on its merits or not, the only way a jury can "nullify" anything is to find the defendant FACTUALLY innocent when he is actually guilty. NOTE THAT THIS IS A FINDING OF FACT, NOT A DETERMINATION OF LAW.

With Respect,

Snoop


MY RESPONSE: In our common law republic, the juries only determine QUESTIONS OF FACT (guilty or not guilty, liable or not liable). Juries are never asked QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LAW. So, juries do not determine QUESTIONS OF LAW. The trial judge does that.

During the "guilt phase" of a criminal case, the trial judge does not tell the jury what penalties are applicable if they find the defendant guilty. During the "guilt phase" of the case, the trial judge only tells jury enough about the law for them to correctly make their FACTUAL DETERMINATION (guilty or not guilty). In most jurisdictions and with most crimes. juries do nothing else but determine guilt of innocence.
In these jurisdictions and with these crimes, if the jury finds the defendant guilty, the judge sentences the defendant to the punishment prescribed by statute. In these jurisdictions and with these crimes, the only means a jury has to "nullify" anything is to find the defendant innocent of the crime when he is actually guilty of the crime. NOTE THAT THIS IS A FINDING OF FACT, NOT A DETERMINATION OF LAW.

So, whether a jury accepts the applicable law on its merits or not, the only way a jury can "nullify" anything is to find the defendant FACTUALLY innocent when he is actually guilty. NOTE THAT THIS IS A FINDING OF FACT, NOT A DETERMINATION OF LAW.

And that is why you are talking about lieyer law, not Law that has checks and balances from the Sovereign People.
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,947
Reaction score
5,072
Anna von Reitz

February 15 at 1:13 PM ·

Patterns of Fraud - Ignorance and The Courts

I often get people who ask me if I am a fraud because I am not a member of the Bar, and in their minds, that means I couldn't be a lawyer or a judge.

Patiently, I explain the difference to them. Yes, you can be a lawyer and you can serve as a Justice (technically not a Judge, but higher than a Judge) and not be a Bar Attorney at all.

In fact, in this country, you cannot be a member of the Bar Association and serve in a Public Court intended to address average living people.

That little salvo of factual information sets people back on their heels and causes looks of amazement, but those are the facts, ma'am.

An Amendment to the Federal Constitution prohibiting Bar Attorneys from holding any Public Office in our American Government was ratified by our States of the Union in 1819, and that's the way it has been ever since ---in our States--- as opposed to their States of States.

All the courts that people are familiar with, and which "mistakenly" address our people every day, are federal courts of "strictly limited" jurisdiction -- and they shouldn't be addressing the General Public at all.

Even the State-of-State courts, like the State of Nevada Superior Court, are in fact federal franchise operations and shouldn't be addressing the General Public, either.

But then, until very recently, (1 October 2020) Nevada wasn't really a State; it was still a Territorial "State", waiting for full enrollment as a State of the Union. It's land and soil jurisdiction was in limbo, operated as a State Trust by the Territorial United States Government on a custodial basis under the provisions of the Northwest Ordinance.

The courts that our people see day to day and which they ignorantly assume are their courts, are all either: (1) private courts operating as administrative corporate tribunals or (2) courts operating as "special purpose" courts of "limited jurisdiction", such as the Maritime and Admiralty Courts, which should only be addressing actual sea-faring business contract disputes or military personnel.

This is all part of the generalized fraud, confusion, and mis-administration of the Federal Government, and it can only be answered and corrected by Americans who are awake enough to self-govern.

I am using the courts as an example of a more generalized phenomenon -- the use of ignorance to promote fraud.

The more ignorant a person is, the easier it is to bamboozle and defraud them, so it is in the best interests of the con men among us to keep people dumbed down and ready to accept whatever they are told.

This has been the case and the practice of these criminals since the days of the Roman Empire, when policies were put in place to ensure that there would be a permanent underclass of slaves to support the lavish lifestyles of the elites and the ambitions of the Empire.

The elites of Rome identified themselves via the use of small letters to write their names --- marcus flavius of ephesus, for example. Indentured Servants used Upper and Lower Case to write their names: Marcus Flavius of Ephesus. And slaves, who usually could neither read nor write, were identified by the use of DOG LATIN --- names written in all capital letters: MARCUS FLAVIUS OF EPHESUS.

Need I say more to all of you who have spent years paying the debts of YOUR NAME, and never realized that you were being misidentified and misaddressed as a slave belonging to the Municipal Government of Washington, DC? That is, a "Fourteenth Amendment citizen" who is guilty until proven innocent, and obligated to pay all the debts of your Masters?

These people are not content to wait around for rubes to fall off the turnip truck. They actively promote and create ignorance, so as to make their job of fleecing you easier.

They purposefully omit vital information from your public school education, and make sure that history and civics are "electives" --- and even if you take those elective classes, they are horrifically dull, full of both useless information and omissions designed to lead you to wrong assumptions.

Case in point -- were you misled to think that the Reconstruction following the Civil War was done and over a long time ago?

These predators use "legalese" and "terms of art" to confuse you and make you assume one meaning, when they are talking about something else entirely.

For example, when they say "natural person" they are talking about a dead body, a corpse. When they say "person" they are talking about a corporation of some kind. And how are you supposed to know this?

Well, you're not. And you are not supposed to have anyone to defend you from all this endless guile, either.

The lawyers who are supposed to be your counselors, are instead being dumbed down themselves, and almost all lawyers (present company excluded) are shackled to the dictates of the Bar Associations --- which are being operated as closed Union shops in defiance of the Public Law.

The promotion of ignorance and the abuse of innocent people via ignorance is one of the hallmarks of the Evil Ones, indeed, it is their primary mode of operation ---and now you can see it plainly described and in front of your faces.

You now know why they promote ignorance (to make it easier to defraud you) and you know at least some examples of how they do it (dumbing down in the schools and universities, establishment of a coercive foreign guild/union system to enforce ignorance and/or compliance with their scheme), and you also know why lawyers don't defend you from it (they are either ignorant themselves or they are afraid the Bar Association will sanction them and they will lose their livelihood and position of social esteem).

So, there's the God's Honest recount of the situation. What are we all going to do about it? Besides the obvious mandate to educate 320 million people?
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,947
Reaction score
5,072
Anna von Reitz
40m ·

Public Notice - Twenty-Second of February 2021

Executive Orders apply ONLY to the "Executive Branch" members of the organization being represented.

Joe Biden represents a new, bogus Municipal CORPORATION that is trying to snag a contract with us by assumption.

He is not President of the United States of America and, more importantly, he is not The President of The United States of America, either.

Anyone who isn't directly employed by "President Biden" and who isn't part of the Executive Branch of his commercial corporation can ignore him and his Executive Orders with all the impunity of non-employee of Wendy's ignoring an "order" for a Wendy's Burger.

As an example--- "mask mandates" apply only to actual Municipal "citizens of the United States" and his Executive Orders apply only members of the Executive Branch of the privately owned and operated Municipal CORPORATION he is trying to use as a storefront "representing" our lawful government more than five (5) years after we served Notice that we are in Session and not accepting representation apart from the explicitly enumerated delegated powers.

We have told Biden and his Administration and his Handlers and the Principals responsible for this Mess---- no deal. No further contract without a complete audit and renegotiation.

Biden is a self-admitted influence peddler and crook, and we refuse any authorization of any credit or any use of American assets by his Administration.

We demand a full audit and disclosure of actual and validated political status and fiscal standing related to every so called "citizen of the United States", including an audit and validation of all IRS and Internal Revenue Service Master Files, which deliberately create False Dossiers on Americans and impersonate living people.

All the Municipal Corporations authorized under the Corporations Act of 1870 are improperly chartered and are operating illegally in this country and worldwide. We have already stipulated the conditions under which they may be re-chartered under American Public Law. They are otherwise all subject to liquidation.

This Public Notice is being sent to peacekeepers and law enforcement officers, courts, and regulatory authorities worldwide. Notice to Agents is Notice to Principals and Notice to Principals is Notice to Agents.

by: Anna Maria Riezinger, Fiduciary
The United States of America
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,947
Reaction score
5,072
Anna von Reitz

1h ·

Your Car or Their Vehicle?

Commerce is business conducted between two incorporated (enfranchised) entities.

Are you an incorporated or enfranchised entity? Are you engaged in interstate commerce?

Probably not, unless you knowingly, willingly, voluntarily, and with the benefit of full disclosure agreed to operate in a "commercial capacity" and adopted the political status of a Municipal citizen of the United States.

This basically means that you would have to voluntarily change your birthright political status from a free-born American to the status of a Municipal slave, give up all your constitutional guarantees and donate all your earthly estate, to a foreign commercial corporation run by the Roman Catholic Church for use as chattel backing their debts and investments.

And there would have to be proof of your willing participation in this scheme.

Instead, you are still you, and still in control of this situation if you choose to educate yourself and make your employees come to heel.

You are the "Authorized Representative" so long as you don't hand your Proxy to the Numbnutz in the US CONGRESS by registering as a "Voter".

You have every right to authorize the DMV or other "licensed service provider" to issue private tags for your car.

Different State of State organizations call private plates or private tags by different names but they all mean the same thing --- this is a private car being used for non-commercial purposes.

The right to travel is an inherent and Natural Right. Nobody can stop you from going from Point A to Point B in your "private capacity" using your own privately owned car or truck on a public road, yet, as many of you can attest, there are plenty of highway patrolmen out there who think they can interfere and arrest you at will.

This is because you have mistakenly registered your own car or truck as a commercial vehicle, and haven't authorized the DMV to issue the proper plates and tags for it.

Left to their own devices (and self-interest) they just give you what they use themselves as government employees--- which then allows them to presume that you are "one of them" and are subject to all the same private corporation laws and must obey policies and statutes that they are subject to as a condition of their employment.

We don't want to waste a lot of time and effort on this "issue". It does need to be corrected on a systemic basis. But if this is the only thing that consumes your interest in terms of having your rights and freedoms purloined and their constitutional guarantees to you evaded, go ahead and write a letter to the DMV. Tell them that you are the Authorized Representative for JOHN M DOE and you are authorizing them to issue you private license plates and/or tags that reflect the private non-commercial nature of your car.

All the State of State organizations we have dealt with have such private designation plates and/or "private registration" tags available. Start digging and asking and you will receive answers.
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,947
Reaction score
5,072
Anna von Reitz

14h ·

Orientation for Newbies

So you have discovered the Great Fraud and figured out that you need to come home to the land and soil jurisdiction where you naturally belong.

Congratulations! You've made a wise choice, but.....

Whether you know it or not, you are carrying a lot of baggage with you.

This isn't your fault. You've been indoctrinated and trained to accept a Top Down hierarchy of authority, and as a result, your expectations and assumptions about government and "how things work" is 180 degrees out of phase with your actual government, in which authority flows in the opposite direction.

That is just one major change and adjustment. There are others.

You've been given a completely twisted version of history, with more holes in it than an average Swiss cheese.

Rewards, respect, and authority in our system of government is given to those who are wisest, kindest, most learned, most motivated to serve, and most honorable.

All the hard lessons you learned on the playground and climbing the corporate ladder need to be left behind in favor of an egalitarian vision of self-respect, self-determination, and self-responsibility, freedom, equality, brotherhood, and freewill ---- all of which are the hallmarks of self-governance.

Self-governing a country begins first and foremost with governing ourselves.

With all this freedom and so many rights to exercise, some newcomers think that someone died and left them in charge of the world. This is not the case. As my Mother used to tell me (almost daily) --- your rights end where another person's rights begin. We have not been taught that lesson in public school, in the military, or in the corporate environment, so we all need to learn it now.

Reflect upon the meaning and attitude of this logic: "I may not agree with what you say, Sir, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."

We are all the inheritors of Nature and Nature's God, all having unalienable rights --- and only some of those rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights. In our world, we all have the right to be idiots, to make mistakes, to insult others, believe horse-hooey, and engage in damaging behaviors--- but then, as adults, we are also held accountable for these choices.

Bad choices catch up to us, usually sooner than later.

Anyone who causes disruption, interferes with the ability of the Assembly to conduct business, is belligerent and disrespectful, doesn't bother to get on the Agenda, indulges in gossip and character assassination, and otherwise feels called to undermine group morale and commandeer the proceedings can be removed by the officers appointed to provide security.

You have a birthright and can't be deprived of membership in the State Assembly, but you can be kicked out of any single meeting if you persist in causing trouble or obstructing progress.

Nobody should be insulted by being presented with a Bevans Declaration.

Those who are employed by the Federal Government or the Federated State of State Government should, generally speaking, be participating in their own District Assembly, and while they are welcome as State Nationals to attend public meetings of the State Assembly and share their opinions about in-State issues, they are not eligible to function as State Citizens and are not eligible to vote on or influence interstate decision-making until they retire or otherwise sever their obligations to the Federal Government.

All our State Coordinators function as State Nationals on assignment for the Federation. The Federation is not the Federal Government. The Federation is an instrumentality of the States of the Union combined. As a result, there is no presumption of any conflict of interest owed to a foreign government on the part of our Coordinators, but they still do not function as State Citizens until they retire from the position of State Coordinator or the position naturally sunsets once the entire Assembly structure is up and functioning properly.

A considerable amount of confusion has surrounded the issue of being a State National versus being a State Citizen. State Citizens have to be at least 21, have their home firmly established within the borders of their native or adopted State of the Union, have their 1779 Declaration recorded, be a member of the Assembly in good standing, and most importantly -- have no divided allegiance to any other political entity or government. When it comes to interstate and international affairs, those making decisions for our States cannot be compromised by conflicts of interest.

State Nationals on the other hand are free of any obligation to the State Government except that they are obligated to keep the peace. This means that State Nationals enjoy the protection of the State and the enforcement of their Constitutional guarantees by the State, and so long as they don't harm anyone else or ruin or steal property belonging to others, they are free to live their lives and enjoy the peace.

At first glance many Newbies think this means that being a State National is a free ride, all the gravy and none of the responsibility. That is precisely the attitude that got us into the Mess we are now trying to correct. We left power-hungry and greedy men at the helm and we see the results of too many good men and women "doing nothing".

The present situation is living testimony to the fact that if you want something done right, you need to do it yourself. There's only us chickens here and the work and the responsibility is entirely on us. If you are not pleased with the way things have gone in the past--- chalk it up to one thing: you and others like you weren't here, doing your Public Duty to self-govern. If you think things aren't happening fast enough to suit you, there's the wheel, Hamster.

For an adult to choose the status of State National usually implies some condition of need. People who are too old or too sick to fully participate, people who have overwhelming burdens at home, people who suffer from mental issues and addictions, people who are working for other governments, and all minors, are owed the status of State Nationals--- and our protection.

Among all the surprises we've had as we assemble and bring the State Assemblies into Session is the fact that many people no longer have a concept of public meetings, civil discourse, and decorum. Our State Assemblies are public bodies, they are not private clubs. Assemblies are not, generally speaking, places to air your private grievances--- though there are avenues supported by the Assemblies to pursue such grievances.

We have recently gained access to the Administrative Courts which are responsible for providing us with remedy for trespasses and mis-administration against us. We are also well on our way to securing commercial remedy for Assembly members. Those who are arriving with pre-existing legal issues need to complete a Federation Criminal Incident Report and record it via the office of the State Recording Secretary as a first step toward redress.

Assembly meetings cannot devolve into Pity Parties or Gossip Sessions. Always remember that there are 320 million Americans and most of them have a horror story or two or three to share. Also remember that our combined Bigger Fish to Fry are more important than any one misery. We don't need tears and drama. We need proper, practical, determined, and concerted group action.

Likewise, there are some who come into our Assemblies with the nasty and immature habit of gossiping and causing doubt, disruption, and paranoia. The Assemblies are here to accomplish serious and necessary business and it is to the benefit of everyone concerned that we get on with it and establish a united front. We can't do this if we are sniping at each other behind our backs like teenagers in a locker room.

If you have any honest concerns or questions, you all know how to get in contact with me. Be direct and expect that I will be direct in return.

Always remember that what we are doing is completely lawful, proper, and peaceful. We are restoring our government to its full form and function and there is nobody else that has the right to do that. We've been running on four cylinders since 1860, but that is about to change for the better.

You have grown up in a system calling itself a "democracy", and in this democracy the majority rules--- or is supposed to. However, in our actual government, we maintain republican states/States. There are rules and definitions, but they all respect freewill and the rights of individuals above all else. We are, each one of us, a majority of one.

In a democracy there is a definite herd or team mentality, which causes people to attack others who don't agree with them and to be frightened if there isn't a universal agreement in place about everything down to a gnat's eyelash, but in our system of government, everyone is allowed their own opinion, doesn't have to like everything, isn't required to march in step or march at all. And they can still be respected and trusted, so long as they do no harm.

There may be times when members of an Assembly passionately disagree about important issues. You will be tasked to consider many such issues in the days to come, and you all owe it to yourselves and to each other to be alert and observing and thinking hard and logically as you decide issues that will impact you, your family, your future, your State of the Union, and the country as a whole.

If you just felt a chill go up your spine--- good. It's an awe-inspiring responsibility that undergirds all the rights that you are heir to. It's not for the lazy, the ignorant, or the faint of heart, and you may be feeling a bit overwhelmed as you realize---- "This is for real!"

Well, yes, it is. This is your government. This is what underlies The American Dream. It's your family, friends, and neighbors coming together to decide what happens in your State and your world, and enforcing the Public Law that you collectively ordain for your protection and the protection of all other Americans.

It's a stiff order and I won't sugar-coat it. There's a lot of thankless, hard, picky, work to be done. There are funds to raise. Books to bind. Classes to attend. Plans to be made. Research to delve into. Resources to be developed. Video courses to create. Communications to make. Courts to organize and run. Peacekeeping duties to attend to. Court suits to fight. And the list goes on.

Our country and our government has been left adrift and at the mercy of foreign subcontractors for a century and a half. We are like Rip Van Winkle, and everyone has a lot of catching up to do. That said, there is no more important work to do or anything of more crucial potential benefit or loss.

This is, in its own way, America's Finest Hour and the rest of the whole world is waiting and watching to see how we, the purported Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, will rise to this occasion --- or not. There is in America a great deal of talk about freedom, but upon reflection, most of you already know that you have experienced precious little actual freedom in your lifetimes.

This is largely because your government has been in mothballs and your public employees have been running things to suit themselves and their corporate masters. They have slowly--- and sometimes not-so-slowly--- usurped upon us until everything is upside down and backwards, the tail is wagging the dog, the employees are telling the employers what to do, and every other modern illness of body, mind, and spirit has accrued.

If you want this craziness to end, and you want the freedom you have earned and the money you are owed, welcome home. That's what all the rest of us want, too. Remember that going forward, and you won't need me to tell you what to do. You will quickly learn the simple logic and laws of freedom:

Every man and woman is born free and deserves to live and die free.

Everyone is responsible for him or herself, for what we think, and what we do.

With every right comes a responsibility.

Our individual rights end where another's rights begin.

Rights and freedoms that are not exercised are moot.

When we enslave another, we enslave ourselves.

We are responsible for directing those we employ.

If we don't like something, it's up to us to change it.

If we see an injustice, it's up to us to correct it.

If we want peace, it's our duty to keep it.

If we are bogged down, it's our job to climb over or dig under.

If we cherish our own rights, we must cherish the rights of others.

If we cherish our own freedom, we must cherish the freedom of others.

And we can never give up or hand over our responsibilities in these respects to anyone else, for the moment we do, we are putting ourselves and everyone else at the mercy of those twisted and maniacal few who willfully live their lives as parasites.

These con artists and bag men have proliferated while American slept. They've been spinning their tales and redefining everyone and everything to suit themselves, they've registered us as foreign nationals, rewritten history at least a dozen times, taken over our schools, taken over our air waves, bullied us on the highways we paid for, mortgaged our homes and businesses to pay their debts, passed themselves off as our "representatives'' and wrecked havoc throughout the rest of the world ---- and all the while, they've been blaming us, their victims, for it.

People throughout the world have been taught to blame "the Americans" when those responsible are actually foreign subcontractors of ours and commercial corporations run amok on our shores.

It's time to recoup our tarnished reputation as a country and as a nation. It's time to let fly the Big News that it wasn't us causing all the trouble, spending all the money, and bullying everyone inside and outside our borders. As you embark, officially, on this grand enterprise of reclaiming America for Americans, it's time to fully understand that we nearly lost it.

What could not be taken from us by force of arms, has been siphoned away by guile, instead. Our enemies have not come from Russia or China. Instead, they've come from Dallas and New York and New Orleans, from L.A. and Frisco, from Lisbon and Leeds, Brussels and Bern, Rome, and, of course, most of all, from Westminster and the Inner City of London.

It's our purported friends and allies who have betrayed us, because they are the only ones who could---- the ones who had the means, the motive (their unpaid debt to us), the inside track, the trust, and the opportunity to create this entire debacle. And they have betrayed their own people, too.

So, face it. Acknowledge where we are and all the mistakes and misconceptions and violations of trust that put us in this position, looking at nearly 160 years of enslavement by our own public employees, occupation by our own Army, and all the rest of it.

It's daunting to say the least. Nothing is as it should be, nor as our Talking Heads told us it was. Walter Cronkite lied through his teeth and the only truthful comment he left us was a Saturday Night Live skit in something like 1993. Some people looking at this would tell you that the American Dream is dead. Might as well go home, roll a rock over our heads and learn to speak Mandarin.

But that's not what we believe, here at our State Assemblies. We believe that we are the employers of these goats, and we will have our way.

The Queen and the Pope and the Lord Mayor will have to pay the piper for what they've done here, to their good friends and supporters, the Americans, the Aussies, the Canadians, too; to the Germans and the Japanese, the Libyans, Syrians, Iraqis, and Palestinians, the Poles and Czechs, the Lebanese, the Croatians, the Bosnians, the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Indians, the Russians, the French and Italians, the Greeks, the Turks, and almost everyone else, have suffered right along with us, including the entire continent of Africa.

It's not us on the run, folks. It's them. So take a good, deep breath --- and begin. Bring your own mop and bucket.
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,947
Reaction score
5,072
Anna von Reitz

1h ·

Message to All Targeted Individuals:

Message to all T.I.s --- you are being targeted because you are listed as being "citizens of the United States" --- and so, are fair game as guinea pigs, the equivalent of fish in a barrel with no legal protections, no rights, and no hope of gaining an ear in Congress.

It's Congress that "sold you" as human chattel to serve as test subjects. Don't be ridiculous and expect Congress, which is making money hand-over-fist from this "Test Program", to cancel it just because you are being made ill and miserable.

And don't expect the mindless wonders in charge of the Territorial U.S. Military to give you any breaks. So far as they are concerned, you are all "Enemy Combatants" in a theater of occupation.

So.

Now that you understand your position, change it.

Declare your political status as an American and reclaim your birthright. Join your State Assembly and flex your muscle in your proper standing and capacity. Inform the United Nations Secretary General that you are "non-domestic" with respect to the United States (Inc.) and you are being harmed as a result of their various warfare testing programs. That should be sufficient to get the ball rolling. Then send a copy of the United States Secretary of State. And to your State Secretary of State.

Take action as an American and as an Employer of these dumb brutes, instead of signing a Petition and pleading with them, oh, please, please, Mr. Bad Man, don't hurt me anymore! I am just a hapless American being mistaken as an Enemy Combatant by my own Armed Forces while at home in my own country, and being used as a "domestic target" when I am not naturally in their jurisdiction at all and not subject to their government and not "domestic" with respect to them at all.

Got the idea of what is actually going on now? Know why the rats smirk at you and pretend not to know what they are doing? Get the hammer on THEM and stop begging for mercy from pirates.

Get on your feet and start moving. If you want to live in peace and not as buzzard bait ---- do what I am telling you to do.

Go to: www.TheAmericanStatesAssembly.net and get started today