Fun with Lawful Money

Printable View

05-26-11, 03:40 AM
Jaro

Fun with Lawful Money

Lawful means REAL, like in common law real. That means they actually PAY debts, not just discharge them like FRN's do. Lawful money buys you ownership and all the rights of ownership that come with it, while FRN's only buy you possession, because they're not real, i.e. they have no real value, b/c they're not redeemable in anything of value.

FRN's are private 'money' of Federal Reserve, use of which is a PRIVILEGE, and privileges are taxable. Lawful money is real national money, not a private privilege, therefore it's not taxable. The corporate State just has no authority to tax (or regulate) what's TRULY YOURS, like lawful money and what it buys. They only can tax private script like the FRN's, b/c using those is a State-provided privilege.

Oh, and I hope you guys realize that using lawful money to buy stuff, gives you TRUE OWNERSHIP, which is NOT subject to corporate State's statutes. For example buying a car with LM, puts that car OUT of the corporate Stateand its Vehicle code, since it's now IN PRIVATE, i.e. under common law. IF you can properly assert that status.

Buy a house with LM, and there's no property tax, no city code liability, etc. :-) I think we're gonna have a LOT of fun with this in the future, telling corporate State enforcers to go pound sand, since they got no lawful authority, only a legal one to enforce corporate Statutes :-)
05-26-11, 10:44 AM
shikamaru

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaro

Lawful means REAL, like in common law real. That means they actually PAY debts, not just discharge them like FRN's do. Lawful money buys you ownership and all the rights of ownership that come with it, while FRN's only buy you possession, because they're not real, i.e. they have no real value, b/c they're not redeemable in anything of value.

The term real is contextually sensitive.

In civil law, real relates to any thing (whether movable or immovable), as distinguished from a person (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.)
How much would we like to wager the that the term real estate, has its roots in Roman Civil Law?

We must take caution when using common street understanding with legal terms of art ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaro

FRN's are private 'money' of Federal Reserve, use of which is a PRIVILEGE, and privileges are taxable. Lawful money is real national money, not a private privilege, therefore it's not taxable. The corporate State just has no authority to tax (or regulate) what's TRULY YOURS, like lawful money and what it buys. They only can tax private script like the FRN's, b/c using those is a State-provided privilege.

There was tax in common law too. How do you think the King acquired his royal revenues (census regalia)?
Metals became coin of the realm first by practice, then by court ruling and precedence. Most of Europe was historically on a de facto silver standard for centuries. The gold standard was relatively recent in British and European history (16th century).
English Common Law was primarily monopoly law for the King and nobles.
Subjects hated Common Law. Some so much so that they left the realm (colonization).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaro

Oh, and I hope you guys realize that using lawful money to buy stuff, gives you TRUE OWNERSHIP, which is NOT subject to corporate State's statutes. For example buying a car with LM, puts that car OUT of the corporate Stateand its Vehicle code, since it's now IN PRIVATE, i.e. under common law. IF you can properly assert that status.

Buy a house with LM, and there's no property tax, no city code liability, etc. :-) I think we're gonna have a LOT of fun with this in the future, telling corporate State enforcers to go pound sand, since they got no lawful authority, only a legal one to enforce corporate Statutes :-)

I contend it is the registration of the land which subjects one to property tax and building codes.
Registration makes a thing a(n) (equitable) security.
That security is now marketable.
That thing becomes an asset for multiple interests rather than property held jus privati.
Since the house is now an equitable security in which profit can be derived, the gains are subject to tax.
05-26-11, 01:20 PM
David Merrill

I would replace Ownership with Highest Title. In the parameters and context of martial rule (unless somebody would please produce a Treaty of Peace following the Civil War) we find that the trust involving fiat in America conveys the Ownership, even of the money itself to the military might in place. This is the 1863 Trust - IN GOD WE TRUST. Here is an example of it in action:

I placed a $20M lien on the Security Agreement, Accepted for Value against the fungible fidelity bond of the chief judge and attorney general when they violated my right to a speedy trial. Within hours of the Lien going into place, January 7, 2009 the chief judge changed his Oath of Office to exclude God - outside the Trust. Note that the AG's oath is bogus as it was not subscribed in the 30 days prescribed by law but it never had the Name on it anyway! The form of the oaths is outside the scope of the Constitutions and statutes - swearing without expression of the punishing authority - my mother's grave... a stack of bibles. Form of Oath. Form of Affirmation. These officials have gone rogue and are running vacant offices - fine; for the people who do not understand the forum. In my opinion, the people who do not understand are still in need of governance. I prefer it that way.

One can break out of the box - the parameters of the trust by, not declaring yourself a peaceful inhabitant; but by being one. [Melchizedek did not fight, he blessed Abram as a priest does. Abram did not pay him in money - he was given the material spoils of the battle.]

If one appeals to the 3000 year-old trust, protection of the Blood Sacrifices (animal and human [Christianity]) in order to survive the Golden Calf Imagery (Israel) then they accept that form of monetizing of sin. The Levites - from levah, Leviathan prevail in the priestcraft. One finds themselves immersed into the Israeli Occupation by being in Diaspora (Jews) or Paul's Roman Welfare State (Christians) - read Romans 13 sometime with Shikamaru's and others' posts about Roman fascism in America. The Income Tax of killing off your prize livestock to appease an angry and bloodthirsty God has been converted in Christian America because you Christians ran to the Ultimate Sacrificial Lamb - Jesus CHRIST of Nazareth for your Atonement. It is still the monetizing of sin and you are still considered liable for the Income Tax in the scope of that trust parameter and survey.

One can break out past and superseding those parameters by Election. Which of course is nothing you can control - Election means some higher authority chooses - but you can accept Election by Nominating yourself. This is where a true name comes in handy. At least you can cry Misnomer and abate pleadings into other trust systems rather than haggle about whether you are Legal Name (of trustee) or LEGAL NAME. - Worthless!

Beyond Moses salvaging Israel and its newer sect Christianity [forged out of Jesus' inner apocalyptic mystery cult and Paul's house arrest on the Roman Welfare State's dole] I suggest you consider the Election of Melchizedek, prior to the formation of Israel (Abram before Abraham - begat Isaac and Jacob [Israel]).

Quote:

Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
Gen 14:19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:

Just the same though, you just deferred all ownership to God - the Creator of the Universe (The Trust). By being Elect though, you certainly get to enjoy highest title to your honestly secured stuff by utilizing lawful money.

Quote:

Pro 11:1 A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.

Utilizing the private credit from the Fed forms a first lien on anything you buy with that "money". It is tainted - your title.

Regards,

David Merrill.
05-26-11, 07:20 PM
Michael Joseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I would replace Ownership with Highest Title. In the parameters and context of martial rule (unless somebody would please produce a Treaty of Peace following the Civil War) we find that the trust involving fiat in America conveys the Ownership, even of the money itself to the military might in place. This is the 1863 Trust - IN GOD WE TRUST. Here is an example of it in action:

I placed a $20M lien on the Security Agreement, Accepted for Value against the fungible fidelity bond of the chief judge and attorney general when they violated my right to a speedy trial. Within hours of the Lien going into place, January 7, 2009 the chief judge changed his Oath of Office to exclude God - outside the Trust. Note that the AG's oath is bogus as it was not subscribed in the 30 days prescribed by law but it never had the Name on it anyway! The form of the oaths is outside the scope of the Constitutions and statutes - swearing without expression of the punishing authority - my mother's grave... a stack of bibles. Form of Oath. Form of Affirmation. These officials have gone rogue and are running vacant offices - fine; for the people who do not understand the forum. In my opinion, the people who do not understand are still in need of governance. I prefer it that way.

One can break out of the box - the parameters of the trust by, not declaring yourself a peaceful inhabitant; but by being one. [Melchizedek did not fight, he blessed Abram as a priest does. Abram did not pay him in money - he was given the material spoils of the battle.]

If one appeals to the 3000 year-old trust, protection of the Blood Sacrifices (animal and human [Christianity]) in order to survive the Golden Calf Imagery (Israel) then they accept that form of monetizing of sin. The Levites - from levah, Leviathan prevail in the priestcraft. One finds themselves immersed into the Israeli Occupation by being in Diaspora (Jews) or Paul's Roman Welfare State (Christians) - read Romans 13 sometime with Shikamaru's and others' posts about Roman fascism in America. The Income Tax of killing off your prize livestock to appease an angry and bloodthirsty God has been converted in Christian America because you Christians ran to the Ultimate Sacrificial Lamb - Jesus CHRIST of Nazareth for your Atonement. It is still the monetizing of sin and you are still considered liable for the Income Tax in the scope of that trust parameter and survey.

One can break out past and superseding those parameters by Election. Which of course is nothing you can control - Election means some higher authority chooses - but you can accept Election by Nominating yourself. This is where a true name comes in handy. At least you can cry Misnomer and abate pleadings into other trust systems rather than haggle about whether you are Legal Name (of trustee) or LEGAL NAME. - Worthless!

Beyond Moses salvaging Israel and its newer sect Christianity [forged out of Jesus' inner apocalyptic mystery cult and Paul's house arrest on the Roman Welfare State's dole] I suggest you consider the Election of Melchizedek, prior to the formation of Israel (Abram before Abraham - begat Isaac and Jacob [Israel]).

Just the same though, you just deferred all ownership to God - the Creator of the Universe (The Trust). By being Elect though, you certainly get to enjoy highest title to your honestly secured stuff by utilizing lawful money.

Utilizing the private credit from the Fed forms a first lien on anything you buy with that "money". It is tainted - your title.

Regards,

David Merrill.

very good - but the Sons of Zadok have no inheritance in the land, they inherit God.

There are two priesthoods in the Bible: Levi (Aaron) and Melchizedek. The Levitical priesthood was chosen to administer the terms of the Old Covenant; the Melchizedek priesthood was chosen to administer the terms of the New Covenant.

Thus, the sons of God are priests after the order of Melchizedek, not priests after the order of Levi. Melchizedek was the King of Salem (i.e., "King of Peace").

Melchizedek's calling was not tied to his genealogy (Heb. 7:6). By contrast, Levitical priests had to be a descended from Aaron, of the tribe of Levi.

Heb 7:5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

Heb 7:6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.

Num 18:20 And the LORD spake unto Aaron, Thou shalt have no inheritance in their land, neither shalt thou have any part among them: I am thy part and thine inheritance among the children of Israel.

I say again, Abram was given The Promise long, long before the Law. Levites administer the Law; Melchizedek Priest, the Promise.

Does the Promise nullify the Law - no way.

Hos 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

Mat 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
05-26-11, 09:40 PM
David Merrill

Quote:

Num 18:20 And the LORD spake unto Aaron, Thou shalt have no inheritance in their land, neither shalt thou have any part among them: I am thy part and thine inheritance among the children of Israel.

That is the error that might cause a misunderstanding - the literal interpretation of that verse among Christian pastors anyway. It took the teachings of a Pastor Brett COSTIGAN at Freedom Kingdom Church to walk me through this lesson. This pastor is unique in that he has a degree in economics/history and also teaches grade school. Think about that combination for a moment - economics and he knows how to explain things simply.

He also taught the same literal explanation; that the Levites inherited the execution of the priesthood on the Temple/Tabernacle. To get this think of:

city of Washington, District of Columbia

That is the exact spelling and punctuation when found in a sentence in the Public Laws.

Then understand in the same Judiciary Act of 1789 we find the 'saving to suitors' clause is formation of the Districts - out in the states. There is a municipal structure and jurisdiction overlaid upon the states that took up the obligations and debts of the United States in 1790. It has been this way since. It is a city (noun in general) and a District (noun in specific).

Here is the actual inheritance of the Levites:

Quote:

1Ch 6:53 Zadok his son, Ahimaaz his son.
1Ch 6:54 Now these are their dwelling places throughout their castles in their coasts, of the sons of Aaron, of the families of the Kohathites: for theirs was the lot.
1Ch 6:55 And they gave them Hebron [the Capitol] in the land of Judah, and the suburbs thereof round about it.
1Ch 6:56 But the fields of the city, and the villages thereof, they gave to Caleb the son of Jephunneh.
1Ch 6:57 And to the sons of Aaron they gave the cities of Judah, namely, Hebron, the city of refuge, and Libnah with her suburbs, and Jattir, and Eshtemoa, with their suburbs,
1Ch 6:58 And Hilen with her suburbs, Debir with her suburbs...

I have counted 77 cities there. METRO organization. Trust Guy recovered a prelude to the sentiment discovering METRO 1313 in his attic the other day and shared it on another thread here - thanks again! Here is another angle:

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ROchapter1.pdf
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ROchapter2.pdf
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ROchapter3.pdf

On SJC a fellow hired me to go collect some materials from the Municipal League collection in Denver and that may develop into a whole new thread of how METRO organization - City of XXXXXX took over American politics in the 1950's and was protested much against as socialism. I have a gob on that to show but would rather the reader look into this and decide if we have a discrepancy in doctrine, MJ and I and if so which way to pursue.

Therefore you might spend some more time listening to Brett as he taught a couple years back at Freedom Kingdom. One reason is that while I cannot agree with everything he says, he was blowing my mind as he taught from the pulpit in front of a few thousand parishioners - but for that reason, his career as pastor came to an abrupt end!

The discrepancy delineates whether the priesthood is Brett's "coiling serpent of debt" or not. Feeling that the Levites got no inheritance in the land tends to strike in the mind of the Christians that the priesthood is a good thing arising from good relations with God whereas there was no communal blood-letting of animal sacrifices prior to the Golden Calf Orgy - which would be the first money in a sense. [Gold has no use in history but to be shiny and pounded into foil and wrapped around idols. It is too soft for weapons and tools, yet it does not oxidize and lose its visual lustre.] The Levites in other words were created to save Israel because God was going to destroy the People. The Priesthood was created to monetize sin - the first Income Tax was that an Israelite would have to periodically destroy his most perfect and first fruits in a useless bloodletting to the God of Abraham. This is the perspective I have developed anyway, from realizing Brett's error - that the Levites had no inheritance in the Land - true to scripture but they inherited the cities! - Global municipality. [City of Babylon.] Entering fiat with that Trust - 1861 - and claiming it to be of God - IN GOD WE TRUST was a slippery slope that led to elastic currency in 1913.

I will attempt to connect fuller teachings from Brett's Wisdom House later.
05-26-11, 11:16 PM
Michael Joseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Merrill

That is the error that might cause a misunderstanding - the literal interpretation of that verse among Christian pastors anyway. It took the teachings of a Pastor Brett COSTIGAN at Freedom Kingdom Church to walk me through this lesson. This pastor is unique in that he has a degree in economics/history and also teaches grade school. Think about that combination for a moment - economics and he knows how to explain things simply.

He also taught the same literal explanation; that the Levites inherited the execution of the priesthood on the Temple/Tabernacle. To get this think of:

city of Washington, District of Columbia

That is the exact spelling and punctuation when found in a sentence in the Public Laws.

Then understand in the same Judiciary Act of 1789 we find the 'saving to suitors' clause is formation of the Districts - out in the states. There is a municipal structure and jurisdiction overlaid upon the states that took up the obligations and debts of the United States in 1790. It has been this way since. It is a city (noun in general) and a District (noun in specific).

Here is the actual inheritance of the Levites:

I have counted 77 cities there. METRO organization. Trust Guy recovered a prelude to the sentiment discovering METRO 1313 in his attic the other day and shared it on another thread here - thanks again! Here is another angle:

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ROchapter1.pdf
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ROchapter2.pdf
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ROchapter3.pdf

On SJC a fellow hired me to go collect some materials from the Municipal League collection in Denver and that may develop into a whole new thread of how METRO organization - City of XXXXXX took over American politics in the 1950's and was protested much against as socialism. I have a gob on that to show but would rather the reader look into this and decide if we have a discrepancy in doctrine, MJ and I and if so which way to pursue.

Therefore you might spend some more time listening to Brett as he taught a couple years back at Freedom Kingdom. One reason is that while I cannot agree with everything he says, he was blowing my mind as he taught from the pulpit in front of a few thousand parishioners - but for that reason, his career as pastor came to an abrupt end!

The discrepancy delineates whether the priesthood is Brett's "coiling serpent of debt" or not. Feeling that the Levites got no inheritance in the land tends to strike in the mind of the Christians that the priesthood is a good thing arising from good relations with God whereas there was no communal blood-letting of animal sacrifices prior to the Golden Calf Orgy - which would be the first money in a sense. [Gold has no use in history but to be shiny and pounded into foil and wrapped around idols. It is too soft for weapons and tools, yet it does not oxidize and lose its visual lustre.] The Levites in other words were created to save Israel because God was going to destroy the People. The Priesthood was created to monetize sin - the first Income Tax was that an Israelite would have to periodically destroy his most perfect and first fruits in a useless bloodletting to the God of Abraham. This is the perspective I have developed anyway, from realizing Brett's error - that the Levites had no inheritance in the Land - true to scripture but they inherited the cities! - Global municipality. [City of Babylon.] Entering fiat with that Trust - 1861 - and claiming it to be of God - IN GOD WE TRUST was a slippery slope that led to elastic currency in 1913.

I will attempt to connect fuller teachings from Brett's Wisdom House later.

remember the Nathanim [kenites] had usurped the priesthood as they sit in the seat of Moses. And they perform the service in the office of the Scribe. Perfect example for those who can research the scripture is written in the Book of Esther. Said book being created at least in this writers opinion by one of those Nathanim who call themselves of Judah but do lie - Mordacai. Creating this false holyday - Purim; a complete usurpation of the Priest-line. Some of the earlier texts we see Queen Esther [hidden] saying "I drink no wine with Haman." Going to Jeremiah 35 we see that those of the house of Rechab and Hemath drink no wine - even in the Holy of Holies. For THEIR father told them not to.

It is no surprise that those in power today are not of Levi and would want Brett [brow]beaten for attempting to expose their treachery.

Is it now money that is our Salvation? I think not. For the Husbandman will return to the ground. Go pound dirt ye merchant mariners.
05-27-11, 06:33 AM
Jaro

Quote:

Originally Posted by shikamaru

The term real is contextually sensitive.

In civil law, real relates to any thing (whether movable or immovable), as distinguished from a person (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.)
How much would we like to wager the that the term real estate, has its roots in Roman Civil Law?

We must take caution when using common street understanding with legal terms of art ....

No it ain't, especially since I defined it "like in common law real". Are you saying that common law isn't real or that it doesn't deal with real things in the real world? FYI, Common law is foreign to today's corporate States and their statutes, which AREN'T in real world, since they deal ONLY with LEGAL FICTIONS, which are all DEAD, and exist ONLY on paper and in the minds of men.

Quote:

There was tax in common law too. How do you think the King acquired his royal revenues (census regalia)?
Metals became coin of the realm first by practice, then by court ruling and precedence. Most of Europe was historically on a de facto silver standard for centuries. The gold standard was relatively recent in British and European history (16th century).
English Common Law was primarily monopoly law for the King and nobles.
Subjects hated Common Law. Some so much so that they left the realm (colonization).

Haha, you must be speaking about some OTHER common law. The one I'm talking about is defined here:

"COMMON LAW. That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. See Law, common.
LAW, COMMON. The common law is that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It has never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, wbich is the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law. It has never been reduced to writing; by this expression, however, it is not meant that all those laws are at present merely oral, or communicated from former ages to the present solely by word of mouth, but that the evidence of our common law is contained in our books of Reports, and depends on the general practice and judicial adjudications of our courts.
2. The common law is derived from two sources, the common law of England, and the practice and decision of our own courts.
3. The phrase "common law" occurs in the seventh article of the amendments of the constitution of the United States. "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall not exceed twenty dollar says that article, "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. The "common law" here mentioned is the common law of England, and not of any particular state. 1 Gallis. 20; 1 Bald. 558; 3 Wheat. 223; 3 Pet. R. 446; 1 Bald. R. 554. The term is used in contradistinction to equity, admiralty, and maritime law. 3 Pet. 446; 1 Bald. 554."

OBVIOUSLY then, Common law is law made by People/juries, who also have the power to NULLIFY a law they think unjust or wrong (if they made it, they can judge it). It's only after we slipped into corporate Democracy in 1933, that juries no longer have the power to judge the law, but only the facts. Surely you don't think that the Englishmen in old England TAXED THEMSELVES, do you? So obviously, if there were taxes back then, those were made by the acts of Parliament or the king, and applied only to his subjects, just like now statutes apply only to artificial persons like strawmen. Those were not common law.

I mean, even today we're starting to learn that if you got lawful money, YOU'RE NOT SUBJECT to king Obama's taxes, right? And what's lawful money? It's REAL money, like in common law real.
I mean, when we got lawful money, are we sovereigns or are we sovereigns? :-) Don't only subjects pay taxes?

BTW, Common Law in America was abolished in 1933, when the At Law and Equity jurisdiction were combined and replaced by rules of civil procedure. I mean what would you expect, when the people no longer have REAL money and so can't REALLY own anything, then they have no right to common law which deals with REAL world and REAL things, and not imaginary Matrix of the corporate State, or Law Merchant that deals only with security interest and not with actual ownership.

Oh, an who are the people with power to make (common) laws? Obviously they must be freemen/sovereigns, since only sovereigns have the authority to make (or judge) law. I don't think king's subjects would have such authority; if they did they wouldn't be subjects, would they?

Quote:

I contend it is the registration of the land which subjects one to property tax and building codes.
Registration makes a thing a(n) (equitable) security.
That security is now marketable.
That thing becomes an asset for multiple interests rather than property held jus privati.
Since the house is now an equitable security in which profit can be derived, the gains are subject to tax.

What makes land subject to property taxes, is it's classification as residential, industrial, etc. Only when it's classified PRIVATE, it's not subject to those taxes. And in order to get it classified as private, you gotta pay off the secret liens against that land with gold, or pay for it with lawful money.
05-27-11, 06:48 AM
Jaro

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I would replace Ownership with Highest Title. In the parameters and context of martial rule (unless somebody would please produce a Treaty of Peace following the Civil War) we find that the trust involving fiat in America conveys the Ownership, even of the money itself to the military might in place. This is the 1863 Trust - IN GOD WE TRUST.
Utilizing the private credit from the Fed forms a first lien on anything you buy with that "money". It is tainted - your title.

Regards,

David Merrill.

Actually it's REAL simple, 'Those who have gold make the rules'. I.e. they have real ownership that's not subject to anyone else's rules. Americans lost their gold in 1933, so they no longer have real ownership, since FRN's only buy you possession, subject to corporate State's statutes. Get gold, or at least its equivalent, which now is LAWFUL MONEY, and you'll have right of ownership once again.

Titles are only confusing in this Matrix, since here people get only color of title, while the State retains the real title. Under common law, in the REAL WORLD, there's ONLY ONE title.
05-27-11, 10:03 AM
David Merrill

2 Attachment(s)

Quote:

but that the evidence of our common law is contained in our books of Reports, and depends on the general practice and judicial adjudications of our courts.

The Record. In current society this means the Authories requested in Appeals. The appellate court justices are forbidden to practice law as found in the state constitution. You have to convince them with common law. It is still metaphysics but that is as real as it gets. It is not disqualified by appertaining to Persons (facades which bear corporation-like features of suing and being sued) with Standing in the court.

This is what is in application the Lesson Plan (Instruction Set) here on this Website. He who holds the Record is in Authority. That is where the Power is, and for that power to apply you have to put it in repository with a competent clerk of court. By doing so you become judge-like in that Act. That is what Judges do - Instruct Clerks. In the example I described above I bought a copy of the Register of Action in the persecution against me that described a Five-Year Review on my case. Four and a half years later they picked up the Prosecution and when I brought this up in open court (on the Record) the chief judge presiding Vacated that Review from the Register of Action. So I put the RoA from before, and the RoA after being falsified into the federal evidence repository and proceeded with a billing cycle based in the facts (true judgment) called Waiver of Tort.

Case law is common law. All common law is, is case law.

That was a hard lesson for me to learn - from a second-year law student/relative at a family reunion. It is true. We call upon Authority of the Record - finding of the facts and considering standing opinions - to pursuade the arbitrator (judge) to see things our way before ruling.

That is what you must mean by real common law, presuming that you are correct.

This is why Michael Joseph and I are hashing through the parameters of the Trust. You can have different systems and the one that you apply by reference to 1933 is the application of FDR's War through the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act. The Lieber Code is still quite influential albeit Congress took measures to mitigate martial rule in America in 1973. The martial rule left in place is about preserving the Fed from the run underway through redeeming lawful money. So back to that:

Quote:

Actually it's REAL simple, 'Those who have gold make the rules'. I.e. they have real ownership that's not subject to anyone else's rules. Americans lost their gold in 1933, so they no longer have real ownership...

If that were the sum total of your point then I would dismiss you for being a defeatist or troll. The objective here, in my mind is to provide people with reproducible mental models (mathematics) with which they can find reliable results in getting the best benefit and wealth (energy) from their property and property rights. Within the scope of the fiat (1861) IN GOD WE TRUST it may be best to accept that the state is in ownership and allow the state to do its job as such, with relationship to you as the peaceful inhabitant...

So thank you again MJ;

[See Attachments.]

You have shown me some new points about Mordecai in the advent of a minor holiday - Purim from the Book of Esther. I imagine you are describing that event as an example of priestcraft. In my experience and biblical reading, that transcribes to the Khazarian Elite in the METRO 1313 article I linked earlier. This is a 1995 attempt to describe the effects of the Municipal League and that is the same heritage of the Levites.

Quote:

Some of the earlier texts we see Queen Esther [hidden] saying "I drink no wine with Haman." Going to Jeremiah 35 we see that those of the house of Rechab and Hemath drink no wine - even in the Holy of Holies. For THEIR father told them not to...

From the Essene and Eboinite aesthetic teachings most likely Jesus and his inner mystery cult would have abstained from wine too. Therefore by allowing them to drink at the Last Supper, the whole Prophecy of Zachariah was set askew; Judas not returning with a purchased sword to execute Jesus - Peter selling their coats for two swords, therefore misinterpreting the entire objective of the stabbing and finally with the whole gang falling asleep in the Garden instead of praying with Jesus who desparately wanted to know what had changed about the prophecy. He kept waking them up to help pray for the answer but they were passed out drunk, unable to hold their liquor.

Regards,

David Merrill.
05-27-11, 11:10 AM
shikamaru

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaro

No it ain't, especially since I defined it "like in common law real".

Did you even read the definition I pulled for you from Black's Law Dictionary?

Do you have any documents, treatises, case law, or other evidence to support your term "common law real"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaro

Are you saying that common law isn't real or that it doesn't deal with real things in the real world?

I can tell you haven't done much research or reading on Common Law.

Common Law deals with property both corporeal and incorporeal (this means you can't physically touch it).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaro

FYI, Common law is foreign to today's corporate States and their statutes, which AREN'T in real world, since they deal ONLY with LEGAL FICTIONS, which are all DEAD, and exist ONLY on paper and in the minds of men.

Could you please present any evidence you can muster to support this statement? I shall gladly peruse and evaluate it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaro

Haha, you must be speaking about some OTHER common law. The one I'm talking about is defined here

Could you please define and outline this OTHER common law for clarification?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaro

"COMMON LAW. That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. See Law, common.
LAW, COMMON. The common law is that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It has never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, wbich is the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law. It has never been reduced to writing; by this expression, however, it is not meant that all those laws are at present merely oral, or communicated from former ages to the present solely by word of mouth, but that the evidence of our common law is contained in our books of Reports, and depends on the general practice and judicial adjudications of our courts.
2. The common law is derived from two sources, the common law of England, and the practice and decision of our own courts.
3. The phrase "common law" occurs in the seventh article of the amendments of the constitution of the United States. "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall not exceed twenty dollar says that article, "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. The "common law" here mentioned is the common law of England, and not of any particular state. 1 Gallis. 20; 1 Bald. 558; 3 Wheat. 223; 3 Pet. R. 446; 1 Bald. R. 554. The term is used in contradistinction to equity, admiralty, and maritime law. 3 Pet. 446; 1 Bald. 554."

Kudos. You know how to cite some.
Keep reading and researching. There is such an entity as Parliament. Also, the common law was largely influenced by the Norman-French introducing feudalism into the realm. By the way, there are statutes and a statutory realm in English Common Law.

Also by the way, subjects HATED English Common Law. It was the King and nobles who clung to it.
You can find this in History of the American Bar by Charles Warren.
If English Common Law was so great and wonderful, why did many subjects leave the realm for other lands?
Why did the 13 colonies terminate their status and relation to England?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaro

OBVIOUSLY then, Common law is law made by People/juries, who also have the power to NULLIFY a law they think unjust or wrong (if they made it, they can judge it). It's only after we slipped into corporate Democracy in 1933, that juries no longer have the power to judge the law, but only the facts.

This is a fairly recent development not a practice all throughout the history of English Common Law.
Trial by combat was practiced far longer than trial by jury in England.
Common Law was developed by the Kings and the courts of England. Not the people to be perfectly honest. This is more so after 1069 A.D.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaro

Surely you don't think that the Englishmen in old England TAXED THEMSELVES, do you? So obviously, if there were taxes back then, those were made by the acts of Parliament or the king, and applied only to his subjects, just like now statutes apply only to artificial persons like strawmen. Those were not common law.

The King taxed his subjects. Representation came about because of this taxation. The King had his royal revenues (census regalia).
You need to read more authoritative works on Common Law and less Internet yarn and fluff.
Your usage of strawman is incorrect and out of context. Please see Black's Law Dictionary for what the definition of the term "strawman" is.
The statutes and acts of Parliament along with the edicts of the King and the rulings of the English courts will form the body of Common Law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaro

I mean, even today we're starting to learn that if you got lawful money, YOU'RE NOT SUBJECT to king Obama's taxes, right? And what's lawful money? It's REAL money, like in common law real.
I mean, when we got lawful money, are we sovereigns or are we sovereigns? :-) Don't only subjects pay taxes?

You are far from sovereign nor will you be. When you produce your own currency, own your land in allod, possess your own militarized forces, as well as there being subjects under your territorial jurisdiction, then you can tell me you are sovereign.
When you have recognition as a state by other states under the Laws of Nations, then you can tell me you are sovereign.
Taxation springs from the government of the United States at the federal level. Not "King Obama" whoever that is.

I continue to await your definitions of "common law real".
While we are at it, could you pull me a definition of "real money"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaro

Oh, an who are the people with power to make (common) laws? Obviously they must be freemen/sovereigns, since only sovereigns have the authority to make (or judge) law. I don't think king's subjects would have such authority; if they did they wouldn't be subjects, would they?

Jaro, read a little Blackstone's Commentaries.
If you are really serious, as an addendum, read Lord Coke's works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaro

What makes land subject to property taxes, is it's classification as residential, industrial, etc. Only when it's classified PRIVATE, it's not subject to those taxes. And in order to get it classified as private, you gotta pay off the secret liens against that land with gold, or pay for it with lawful money.

Land was subject to taxes before classification.
Again, more REAL history and less Internet yarn. REAL in this case means substantive, factual, and actual.
Learn a little about the history of land law in English Common Law after 1069 A.D.
When you've finished that, then we can hold an intelligent, rational conversation.
05-27-11, 11:15 AM
shikamaru

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaro

Actually it's REAL simple, 'Those who have gold make the rules'. I.e. they have real ownership that's not subject to anyone else's rules. Americans lost their gold in 1933, so they no longer have real ownership, since FRN's only buy you possession, subject to corporate State's statutes. Get gold, or at least its equivalent, which now is LAWFUL MONEY, and you'll have right of ownership once again.

Titles are only confusing in this Matrix, since here people get only color of title, while the State retains the real title. Under common law, in the REAL WORLD, there's ONLY ONE title.

Please read some history on the gold standard and land law under English Common Law.

You use many terms which I am not sure you could define.
05-27-11, 01:41 PM
David Merrill

Quote:

Originally Posted by shikamaru

Please read some history on the gold standard and land law under English Common Law.

You use many terms which I am not sure you could define.

For a long time when an attorney in a black robe explained that they were using common law, when challenged on that point, I believed he or she was a liar. So I am relating well to Jaro's point. Like I said, it was a newbie - a second year law student who put it truthfully to me, but she would not have if she had more experience - she would realize that was private intellectual property. She later understood that it is more prosecutorial to let the patriot nutjob flail about in ignorance of what common law is.

Here is a good example.

The Libel of Review contains a Certified Copy of this attachment.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...l_6744_969.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...l_6744_970.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...l_6744_971.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...l_6744_972.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...l_6744_973.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...l_6744_974.jpg

That is from 1861 where the Territory never properly formed before Congress adjourned for the War of Rebellion (Civil War). That tells a lot about history there, if you read a bit around here but my point is the last page linked. Look that over carefully and give it some thought, including why I even bothered to include it when describing trust structures that are thousands of years old.

Regards,

David Merrill.