What's in a NAME?

[Anthony Joseph]

Ok AJ I get the public courthouse is NOT "theirs" its a "fictional court."

How does one get to the in a common law court when charges are brought on the real human?

Who then has the meeting of the minds? Who is his brother your talking to with the meeting of the minds? How do you get the meeting in private first and with Who?

In the private A doesn't agree with B with the meeting of the minds in private so then to pursue a claim before other brothers and sisters in the public in common law that law still exists on this land to invoke the right, How does that get started?

I agree that we need to learn, study and invoke this process that is available to man on this land?

Lets get to it.

I am ready for this.

the public courthouse is just a building; an edifice where people have access to court (court is a verb also)

a man is always in or at common law if he remains standing as man; that ability comes with knowledge and practice - do not use ANY legalese or you show competence in a legalese court; and then, you are subject to the rules of said court

if someone sends you a present[ment], find out who is sending it and why through letter writing - do not delay
if it is written using legalese terms, you do not understand as a man; "i believe this may read as thus and so, however i am not certain and i cannot decipher your language, please communicate in common parlance." [a man is not required to know or understand the foreign language of legalese]

if this private communication cannot be settled, one party may choose to take it public by way of a law suit in court
a man has a right to face and question his accuser [cf. the Plaintiff must appear - Trinsey v Pagliaro] (notice this citation is NOT the basis for the claim of man's right, it is just an exhibit for comparison purposes)

if the "Plaintiff" is named as STATE OF XXXXX, IRS, UNITED STATES, etc., then, even according to "their" own rules and precedents, the Plaintiff must appear and the attorney is not permitted to speak to the facts without first hand knowledge; we do not rely upon "their" rules or precedents, we stand upon the common law right to face our accusers in open court

if no man will speak with voice against another man who requires to face, and answer to, his accusers claims, THERE IS NO PROPER CLAIM BEFORE THE COURT - no controversy exists [cf. no subject matter jurisdiction]

if the matter is man on man, the one moving the claim (prosecutor) establishes the rules of court and both parties present their cases before a jury that will judge the merits and render a final decision - the black-robed-one is independent of the tribunal (claimant, wrongdoer, jury) and only bears witness to the happenings

it is the claimant's court and the judgments and orders issue through said court, with magistrate as witness and court clerk as recorder for public benefit

there is no book or template for this, that is why true common law is unwritten; a man must learn to stand as such (a man) and conduct his affairs accordingly and in honor