Common law is slavery ? - WOW, I don't agree with most of what this guy said !
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.
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.
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.
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:
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: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,
Furthermore there is dishonor upon the Court of Appeals revealed in Scott:…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.
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.However, the response did not state whether these documents had been filed with the secretary of state.
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.
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.
Great information, thanks David !
Common Law was the King of England's attempt at monopoly.
Subjects hated the Common Law and its attorneys. (History of the American Bar).
AFAIK JAG Corp aren't allowed to practice law.Originally Posted by David Merrill
By prescription "conservators of the peace" and citizen-jurors nonetheless.
All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.
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.
What are the not so good things, do you think?
I think he's full of bs, at times.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote