the wording has changed on title 28 1333

[tommyf350]

i found this out last night and im not sure if it changes anything but the new reading seems more ambiguous,so my guess is the saving to suitors clause is gaining in popularity,and they are trying to hide it.so i thought for anyone new here like myself i would point that out.

i also plan to start reading this tonight i found it in my ancillary reading from the clause mabey others can find value and signifigance in it,since its new.
"Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate,
Bankruptcy, and Criminal Procedure, and the Federal
Rules of Evidence"

http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/rules/rules-published-comment.pdf

.....................

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1333

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1333?quicktabs_8=2#quicktabs-8

[David Merrill]

Thank you Tommy;


Over the years I have actually used verbiage about Congress' "original intent". The new rendering excludes the term "common law". So I have always presumed that Congress did this to evade people rendering that a common law remedy is different than what the courts have to offer.

[Freed Gerdes]

In reviewing the Credit River case, I read that the case was later nullified, presumably on the basis that the Justice of the Peace did not have judicial authority to rule on the case. Also, the Utah Supreme Court later ruled that the premise of the case was 'without basis' (their normal put-down of any premise that challenges their agenda). Has the Credit River premise (of a contract void of consideration due to illegal bank lending of their credit, but not their money) ever been retested, perhaps in an Article III court? Such a valid court finding would stop the mortgage fraud in its tracks, so I can see where the 'judicial system' (just us) would resist it, but we are seeing the suitors clause being used to magnificient effect elsewhere (Hundredth Monkey, etc). Just askin

Freed

[David Merrill]

In reviewing the Credit River case, I read that the case was later nullified, presumably on the basis that the Justice of the Peace did not have judicial authority to rule on the case. Also, the Utah Supreme Court later ruled that the premise of the case was 'without basis' (their normal put-down of any premise that challenges their agenda). Has the Credit River premise (of a contract void of consideration due to illegal bank lending of their credit, but not their money) ever been retested, perhaps in an Article III court? Such a valid court finding would stop the mortgage fraud in its tracks, so I can see where the 'judicial system' (just us) would resist it, but we are seeing the suitors clause being used to magnificient effect elsewhere (Hundredth Monkey, etc). Just askin

Freed

The Credit River Money Decision is an Attachment on every Libel of Review.

[tommyf350]

Thank you David and Freed, for your input.

to go off topic a bit, from the clause for a moment. I was doing my daily internet searches/reading and happened across a video of a man beating a traffic ticket simply for a motion to dismiss because the trooper failed to appear. I believe I read in another thread here that that would be giving them jusrisdiction.Thats not really my main point its that upon setting up a camera they dismissed his case, was that because he became the court of record at that point ? because the clerk certainly stops in her tracks and the judge covers his face.

Also i was going through the site and I found that video you made, of psychology as a arraignment tool.i found a similar one perhaps it will help , because the man collapsed the CQV trust and didn't consent to the test. it seems to easy but I don't think they were bothered again. I thought it might be helpful to post , but if you don't, your welcome to delete it.

i also had a court case in wich the their was no one but the state as a party making a claim.i didn't know anything about law and i hired a lawyer,i thought all was well,but then they asked me directly if i would give up my rights,he just sat there and smiled,i ignored every instinct i had,and said i did and they asked how i plead and i said innocent. thankfully i was humble the whole time with her ans everything i stated was yes mam ,no mam. it paid off,i think her exact word were she find without a ruling. wich me nor anyone else i have met has been able to let me know what that is.and i havnt had any good results online except it might have been a probation period but im sure they monitor people for that ,and i wasn't.so my experience tells me she wouldn't of asked if she had the authority to make me do anything.

so I'm starting to see the forest from the trees I just want to get my ducks in a row, before I start redeeming , i'm also unemployed so ill have to wait a bit to try.

Thanks again for the replies and this awesome site.

[David Merrill]

You are welcome Tommy and thank you for sharing and the compliment about the website too.