PDA

View Full Version : Common law is slavery ? - WOW, I don't agree with most of what this guy said !



loveunderlaw
10-27-14, 01:24 PM
IMO this smacks of dis-information, and I don't like the fact that he's also disabled commenting on this video. Common law is the original jurisdiction of our Founders and the Monarchy before the Vatican stepped in to make everything they could a statutory\commercial playing field for their $ machine. And also holding a "license" does not mean you've given up your rights either.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFHzgkFwr08

David Merrill
10-27-14, 03:31 PM
I believe that you have just defined common law according to your own perceptions.

The best definition I have found is "case law". Common law is stare decisis.

Common law is whatever is commonly being practiced around you. - Common usage and custom. The county court judge is allowed to legislate from the bench (Colorado) - however he does not want to be overturned on appeal. If he keeps being overturned then he will lose his job and not get clients when he goes back into private practice, unless he moves to another state.

Notice how the appeal judges are bound by common law. They have to listen to authority. Authority is the body of shepardized court cases - primarily found in the local state, district and circuits.


1968

See that how all the judges in any higher positions (appeals justices) are not allowed to practice law?

For the suitor's sake we allow the justice system to save face by just dropping everything in abatement. Otherwise all the vacant official's cases come up for review - sometimes for over ten years. So I will not give you specifics. We looked over all the oaths of office - common law - meaning the constitutions and statutes. The officials have certain filing clerks where they are required to file (publish) their oaths of office.

1970

The Sheriff who confronted the fellow, gave him a choice (nice of him); to go to Booking or to a psychiatric hospital - has an oath of office published but it is witnessed by a "County Court Judge". Before he was released the County Judge signed a warrant to arrest the man and prosecute him criminally. This County Court Judge is required to publish his oath of office at the County Clerk and Recorder and has not done that. The suitor has a Certificate of Fact that the County Judge has never filed an oath. In addition the suitor has a Certified Copy of that County Judge's oath published at the Secretary of State but not since 2006 (two year terms). So the County Judge is operating a vacant office according to the State constitution.

Now pay attention to the use of the common law.

By knowing where the oaths are prescribed to be by law, we established about ten actors who were connected to this fellow's criminal prosecution, including the witnesses to the direct hands-on actors like the County Judge who signed a warrant to subsequently arrest the suitor after he was released from the mental hospital. All the other officials have proper oaths, sworn before the ever-living God (IN GOD WE TRUST trust means BONDED), published where they are supposed to be found.

That is the jury convicting the County Court Judge of running a vacant office. The 2006 improperly published oath further convicts him of doing this intentionally - or in the alternative never reading the constitutions he swore to uphold meaning that all his prosecutions in his court over the years really need Review badly!

These officials, including the State Attorney General are in common law, jurists:


The Abatement stands in true judgment as adjudicated by the jurists, various judicial officers listed below, who have sworn out their oaths of office before the ever-living God, the same God in monotheism on the currency IN GOD WE TRUST, as prescribed by Statute and published them with the proper clerks as prescribed by the state constitution. The Jurists’ oaths of office have been included in the initial abatement. True Name paid the filing fee in the District Court only after understanding the clerk of court refused to accept the papers as a part of the felony cause in the same forum. It would seem that Judge DISTRICT hearing a felony matter as District Judge would allow for papers like this Abatement to be filed easily into that same record but True Name has chosen that this abatement must be properly lodged into the Record and paid the filing fee, even though this matter is already adjudicated in abatement.


People v. Scott in the Colorado Court of Appeals makes clear,


…and proceeds with the performance of the duties connected therewith until the disability is adjudged by a proper tribunal, he is a de facto officer, whose acts performed in the discharge of his official duties are valid and binding.

Furthermore there is dishonor upon the Court of Appeals revealed in Scott:


However, the response did not state whether these documents had been filed with the secretary of state.

And so the Colorado Court of Appeals proceeded in Scott without addressing the positive fact that the District Attorney subject had not published his oath of office in the Secretary of State’s office; but rather addressed tangential principles indicating that complying with the State constitution was superfluous.

Furthermore yet Scott is about a District Attorney not publishing a sworn oath correctly. The District Attorney did not like in this matter of Abatement sign an arrest warrant and sign as witness “County Court Judge” for the oath process of the alleged County Sheriff who took action while in a vacant office under that bogus oath of office. In other words, the office of District Attorney is not hands-on law enforcement directly in contact with making arrests that might involve handcuffing or even tackling a man like True Name. Applying Scott to the County Sheriff and County Judge is very limited especially when applying principles of justice that True Name deserves as a man. A man might act intuitively to defects in process and authority around him, and is not subject to having to discover those defects prior to an encounter with law enforcement. The authority of common sense dictates this to be true. Was True Name obliged to research Bogus COUNTY’s faulty oath of office, and that COUNTY has signed XXX County Sheriff First LAST’s oath of office as County Court Judge from a vacant office; all prior to being confronted by Sheriff LAST and deputies acting upon the bogus warrant too (subsequently)? Additionally when True Name began researching oaths of office at the XXX County Clerk and Recorder he was harassed with threat of arrest if he did not assure officials in writing that he had no access to even other people’s guns and ammunition – outside the scope of the bogus bond agreement he had been coerced to sign after false arrest.

Additionally it might be pointed out that every action of Bogus COUNTY as an alleged County Court Judge since January of 2008, according to Scott is coming up for Judicial Review and True Name is allowing for the Justice Center in County Seat to save face by simply honoring this Abatement already adjudicated by the following jurists as proven by Certified Copies from County Clerk and Recorder offices and the Secretary of State. Additionally yet, Related District Judge’s oath of office is bogus and her current office is vacant as proven in the Abatement and its attached Oaths of Office.

Jurists:

John William SUTHERS (State AG)
Michael BENDER (Supreme Court Chief Justice)
District ATTORNEY
Local PROSECUTOR
District JUDGE
[Mentioned DISTRICT JUDGE] Disqualified – bogus oath. (Failed to renew it this term.)

The above five officials have already by action and factual finding adjudicated res judicata a true judgment that Bogus COUNTY is intentionally and fraudulently acting as County Court Judge by not swearing out an oath of office, or in the alternative never bothering to read the constitutions he swore to uphold in early 2006. The above listed jurists are conscientious and honorable in the oath-bonding process and the State of Colorado Comptroller of the Currency is liable to pay lawful money for any breaches in contract between them and the People, and any one of the People, as enumerated in the Bills of Rights. Bogus COUNTY is without any judicial or sovereign immunity and is exposed personally, as is the State of Colorado for not monitoring officers qualifying their offices.


This is classical confrontation between the two styles of currency - (Federal Reserve) District currency, legislated by Congress (in that form of government) as opposed to the Constitutional setting (forum) we are taught exists, and still does:

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

Non-endorsement simply has to be expressed clearly. The system of just balances still exists in theory. This suitor is quite intrepid, aside from being in a bind (facing prison time). So I have changed things a bit so that the State can get out of this quietly, sealing it up to preserve the otherwise functional justice system.

loveunderlaw
10-27-14, 04:04 PM
Great information, thanks David !

shikamaru
11-02-14, 08:46 PM
Common Law was the King of England's attempt at monopoly.

Subjects hated the Common Law and its attorneys. (History of the American Bar).

allodial
11-03-14, 02:17 AM
See that how all the judges in any higher positions (appeals justices) are not allowed to practice law?

AFAIK JAG Corp aren't allowed to practice law.


These officials, including the State Attorney General are in common law, jurists....

By prescription "conservators of the peace" and citizen-jurors nonetheless.

Moxie
11-03-14, 03:03 PM
Here's an idea: call it unkommon law.


Anyone here even bothered to listen to Karl Lentz audios?

Keith Alan
11-03-14, 03:09 PM
Here's an idea: call it unkommon law.


Anyone here even bothered to listen to Karl Lentz audios?

I have listened to all I could find. He's pretty good on a few things.

Moxie
11-03-14, 03:56 PM
What are the not so good things, do you think?

Keith Alan
11-04-14, 01:02 PM
What are the not so good things, do you think?

I think he's full of bs, at times.

pumpkin
11-04-14, 07:02 PM
Notice how the appeal judges are bound by common law. They have to listen to authority.

Why aren't the trial courts bound by common law? They just do what ever they want, its a huge waste of time and money.

Subjects hated the Common Law and its attorneys.

Subjects are subjects, they don't have good reason to like much of anything.

Moxie
11-06-14, 03:42 PM
I think the "common law" that's so hot right now has always been known as "Kings/Queens Bench."

So it's like special appearance, but on the offense.

Moxie
11-06-14, 03:43 PM
I think he's full of bs, at times.

Yeah, me too....

David Merrill
11-06-14, 03:45 PM
I believe the video of Leroy Michael SCHWEITZER (Montana Freemen) is available in Downloads.

ohiofoiarequest
01-01-15, 04:21 AM
Wow, a 6 minute rant about the common law and yet the guy never once mentions its symbiotic relation with equity? While sad, it's certainly par for the course.

Well in all due fairness he actually did mention equity by his repeated referral to living under "grace". Grace is synonymous with equity...matters of grace "are obviously those specially calling for equitable interference of the Crown" (https://books.google.com/books?id=AkgyAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=equity+granted+of+grace&source=bl&ots=hhSkIE5D7M&sig=hFQx1gYtQFMaCbQY9ebxC6EBseg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SL6kVJzcNtH8yQSHz4DwCg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=equity%20granted%20of%20grace&f=false).

I just wish people would drill down into what they are talking about when they mention these sort of things. It seems like just about every week I see someone struggle to describe in clear and cogent terms exactly what the whole Jesus thing was about or should be about when really it all boils down into a few equity maxims.

I would love to listen to a 6 minute rant about how truly beneficent the equity maxims are.

Here's a prime example of how equity disregards the rigid mold of precedent...look to what the 4th Circuit has to say (http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/101074A.P.pdf) after the US Supreme Court set some things about equity straight in 2011 (http://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/groups/labor_law/ebc_newsletter/12_winter_ebc_news/ebc12winter_sur.html).

In so ruling, the district
court recognized the extreme inequities that such a restrictive
reading of Section 1132(a)(3) created but indicated that prece-
dent left the court with little choice:

It's about time we quit dancing around how potent the equity maxims are in granting relief from the injustices of the at-law jurisdiction. Further, the equity maxims are a formula by which life's most difficult problems are resolved.

"Section 25 of the Judicature Act 1873 provided that if there was any conflict between these principles (common law vs. equity), then equity was to prevail. However, this did not fuse the principles of common law and equity, which still remain as separate bodies of rules. "The two streams have met and still run in the same channel, but their waters do not mix" (Maitland).

David Merrill
01-01-15, 09:07 AM
That strikes me as Erie Doctrine - the blending of law and equity in One Form of Action. - As opposed to Bennett v. Butterworth 52 US 669:



2117

ohiofoiarequest
01-02-15, 01:21 AM
That strikes me as Erie Doctrine - the blending of law and equity in One Form of Action. - As opposed to Bennett v. Butterworth 52 US 669:



Much like the blending of the FRN (law) with the USN (equity).

Per Ohio's 1853 commission to implement the "merged rules" (https://books.google.com/books?id=MgUaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR4&dq=1853+ohio+commissioners+on+practice+report&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PvClVNm8GISYyQSo0YLQAw&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=abolition%20of%20the%20distinction%20between%20a ctions%20at%20law%20and%20suits%20in%20equity%20&f=false), the intent of the abolition of the forms is this..

"The common law will be as it has been and so of equity They will continue to stand to each other in the same relations and their peculiar relief will be invoked in the same cases as before. In a word the proposition to abolish the distinction between actions at law and suits in equity does not affect the principles of law and equity and only changes a part of the machinery heretofore used in administering them It will be observed that the change made in chancery proceedings by this section alone is very trifling. For chancery cases have always been commenced in one way and the way now prescribed is almost identical with it. We repeat then the entire effect of the section we are now considering will be this It will not touch the two systems of pleading heretofore in use. That is a subject to be treated under the head of pleading. It will not touch the modes of trial heretofore in use under the two systems. That is a subject to be treated under the head of trial. It will not touch any part of the proceedings subsequent to the beginning of the suit but simply and only do away with the forms of actions at law and the distinction between them and suits in equity and put in their place one action for every kind of relief heretofore sought by and through each and all of them. It will be noticed that there are many proceedings in court which this section will not affect such as proceedings on Quo Warranto, Mandamus, Habeas Corpus, and many others. The section only provides a substitute for the actions at law so called and what are recognized as suits proper in equity and this single action takes their place and does no more. Any proceeding in either court not begun by an action in a court of law or by a suit in a court of chancery will be begun and conducted hereafter as formerly unless otherwise provided. This one form of action which is thus to take the place of all the other forms of commencing suits is called a civil action. A civil action under this code will comprehend therefore every proceeding in court heretofore instituted by any and all the forms hereby abolished. Every other proceeding will be something else than an action say a special proceeding.

David Merrill
01-02-15, 09:04 AM
Much like the blending of the FRN (law) with the USN (equity).

Per Ohio's 1853 commission to implement the "merged rules" (https://books.google.com/books?id=MgUaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR4&dq=1853+ohio+commissioners+on+practice+report&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PvClVNm8GISYyQSo0YLQAw&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=abolition%20of%20the%20distinction%20between%20a ctions%20at%20law%20and%20suits%20in%20equity%20&f=false), the intent of the abolition of the forms is this..

"The common law will be as it has been and so of equity They will continue to stand to each other in the same relations and their peculiar relief will be invoked in the same cases as before. In a word the proposition to abolish the distinction between actions at law and suits in equity does not affect the principles of law and equity and only changes a part of the machinery heretofore used in administering them It will be observed that the change made in chancery proceedings by this section alone is very trifling. For chancery cases have always been commenced in one way and the way now prescribed is almost identical with it. We repeat then the entire effect of the section we are now considering will be this It will not touch the two systems of pleading heretofore in use. That is a subject to be treated under the head of pleading. It will not touch the modes of trial heretofore in use under the two systems. That is a subject to be treated under the head of trial. It will not touch any part of the proceedings subsequent to the beginning of the suit but simply and only do away with the forms of actions at law and the distinction between them and suits in equity and put in their place one action for every kind of relief heretofore sought by and through each and all of them. It will be noticed that there are many proceedings in court which this section will not affect such as proceedings on Quo Warranto, Mandamus, Habeas Corpus, and many others. The section only provides a substitute for the actions at law so called and what are recognized as suits proper in equity and this single action takes their place and does no more. Any proceeding in either court not begun by an action in a court of law or by a suit in a court of chancery will be begun and conducted hereafter as formerly unless otherwise provided. This one form of action which is thus to take the place of all the other forms of commencing suits is called a civil action. A civil action under this code will comprehend therefore every proceeding in court heretofore instituted by any and all the forms hereby abolished. Every other proceeding will be something else than an action say a special proceeding.

Very engaging! Thank you.



2121

BLBereans
01-03-15, 01:15 AM
Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

COMMON LAW. That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people.

Case Law - search the below link

http://www.onelook.com/?w=case+law&ls=a

Decide whether or not these definitions are equal.

David Merrill
01-04-15, 10:57 AM
Therefore the courts are practicing common law; which is generally the examination of the endorsement contract.

BLBereans
01-04-15, 02:22 PM
The courts are practicing subterfuge.

Usually an examination of a contract in court includes having the contract brought forward and entered into record for the purpose of full disclosure.

Think of common law as lawful money; the definition of either depends upon whether or not the first word is an adjective describing the noun after it or if the full phrase is a noun only.

Chex
01-04-15, 04:19 PM
Therefore the courts are practicing common law; which is generally the examination of the endorsement contract.

Common law (also known as case law or precedent) is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals that decide individual cases, as opposed to statutes (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statute)adopted through the legislative process (http://www.house.gov/content/learn/legislative_process/)or regulations issued by the executive branch (http://www.gpo.gov/help/about_united_states_code.htm)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

BLBereans
01-04-15, 06:47 PM
Common law (also known as case law or precedent) is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals that decide individual cases, as opposed to statutes (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statute)adopted through the legislative process (http://www.house.gov/content/learn/legislative_process/)or regulations issued by the executive branch (http://www.gpo.gov/help/about_united_states_code.htm)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

COMMON LAW. That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people.

I guess one's definition is determined by one's presuppositions and belief sets.

I do not let "decisions of courts and similar tribunals" define common law for me.

Chex
01-04-15, 09:20 PM
I do not let "decisions of courts and similar tribunals" define common law for me.

Thank you. Your case sets precedence.

BLBereans
01-06-15, 09:14 PM
Thank you. Your case sets precedence.

You're welcome. However, "my case" does not bind you unless you let it.

Let's see...

“…the United States, … within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas; (a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a CASE LAW remedy, where the CASE LAW is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land,…” The First Judiciary Act; September 24, 1789; Chapter 20, page 77. The Constitution of the United States of America, Revised and Annotated – Analysis and Interpretation – 1982; Article III, §2, Cl. 1 Diversity of Citizenship, U.S. Government Printing Office document 99-16, p. 741.

Doesn't have the same ring to it does it?

Chex
01-14-15, 06:52 PM
:)
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

Case Law and Jurisdictional Scope Under Rule 1

It is a long established principal that the law is written to means exactly what it says , and is not subject to interpretation or inference in anyway whatsoever

The record of court actions, called case law, shows how U.S. judges have imposed their personal (rather than LAWFUL) discretion and opinions upon persons through the corrupt process of making "new law" under "personal" precedent and not lawful or judicial precedent.

In so doing they ignore Due Process of Law and make it possible to illegally control the lives, liberties and property of naive/ignorant persons present in the courtroom, who do NOT understand the legal limitations imposed on the Federal government by our Constitution, or who, for some unstated reason, choose not to make those limitations part of their defense arguments before the jury.

Case law is only binding on the litigants in the case out of which the ruling comes.

Case law cannot be expanded to apply to other complaints or cases because Article I says "ALL legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress", which of course means that judges can't create or make up new laws as they have been wrongfully doing.

Only Congress can make new law, or alter existing law. (It does say "all legislative powers", NOT 'some' or 'most'.)
U.S. Code: Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18

The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language Page 168 U. S. 103 that he has used. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/168/95/case.html

BLBereans
01-14-15, 10:50 PM
:)

Case Law and Jurisdictional Scope Under Rule 1

It is a long established principal that the law is written to means exactly what it says , and is not subject to interpretation or inference in anyway whatsoever

The record of court actions, called case law, shows how U.S. judges have imposed their personal (rather than LAWFUL) discretion and opinions upon persons through the corrupt process of making "new law" under "personal" precedent and not lawful or judicial precedent.

In so doing they ignore Due Process of Law and make it possible to illegally control the lives, liberties and property of naive/ignorant persons present in the courtroom, who do NOT understand the legal limitations imposed on the Federal government by our Constitution, or who, for some unstated reason, choose not to make those limitations part of their defense arguments before the jury.

Case law is only binding on the litigants in the case out of which the ruling comes.

Case law cannot be expanded to apply to other complaints or cases because Article I says "ALL legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress", which of course means that judges can't create or make up new laws as they have been wrongfully doing.

Only Congress can make new law, or alter existing law. (It does say "all legislative powers", NOT 'some' or 'most'.)
U.S. Code: Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18

The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language Page 168 U. S. 103 that he has used. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/168/95/case.html

Sounds like the "case" of defining common law as 'case law' has little to no merit, especially in the context of the 1789 saving to suitors' clause. Isn't this site named after this clause?

David Merrill
01-14-15, 11:03 PM
Thank you for that BL Bereans;


I am rethinking that common law and case law are synonyms...



Maybe common law is more the common usage and custom and it defines the judicial structure that relies on case law heavily to establish the precedent called authority.