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

[loveunderlaw]

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.

[David Merrill]

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:

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

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 Scott

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]

Great information, thanks David !

[shikamaru]

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]

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]

unkommon law

Here's an idea: call it unkommon law.


Anyone here even bothered to listen to Karl Lentz audios?

[Keith Alan]

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]

What are the not so good things, do you think?

[Keith Alan]

What are the not so good things, do you think?

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

[pumpkin]

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]

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]

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

Yeah, me too....

[David Merrill]

I believe the video of Leroy Michael SCHWEITZER (Montana Freemen) is available in Downloads.

[ohiofoiarequest]

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".

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 after the US Supreme Court set some things about equity straight in 2011.

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]

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: