Video: Judge Admits That The Court Is A Common Law Court - Are Freemen Correct?

I have been doing some research for an upcoming case that I have (civil) so I went to the county court house with a simple question in mind and this is what happened in a nutshell.

I arrived at the county court house, went through the metal detector, and walked up to the information booth on the first floor and asked the very nice 79 year old volunteer the following question:

What type of court is this?

The volunteer looked at me like I was crazy, smiled and said "son, this is a court of law"

I told her, No, I mean if this court is a common law court or an admiralty court or a court of contract.

The volunteer's eyes glazed over, said she did not know and told me that the judge's chambers and bosses resided on the 11th floor.

So off I went to the 11th floor and walked in where I met yet another very nice lady who seemed genuinely eager to help me, after telling me that she could not give me any legal "advice" I told her that I just needed to know what type of court this is in order to mount an intelligent defense.

She let out a sight of relief and said the same thing as the volunteer downstairs: "This is a court of law, where we hear, criminal and civil cases"

I asked her if it was a court of common law, there would have to be an injured party who held a claim against me and that that party had to be a "living, breathing, human being" and not a corporation.

I also asked if it was a court of contract where the court would need my consent in order to proceed with any case against me, then I asked about admiralty law.

Her demeanor completely changed from super nice to plain bitchy!

She said that common law has not been used for "hundreds" of years, that it is now all handled via statues. That the court was not a court of contract because if a statue is broken the court would make the person who broke the statue "pay".

While we were talking, in comes 2 policemen!

The conversation rapidly changed from "what type of court is this?" to " why are you doing research on the courts inner working & do you HATE the US - Do YOU???"

I tried as best I could to explain to the officers that I was simply trying to find out what court it was so I can mount an intelligent defense for an up and coming case, that there was no need for violence, that the court is in fact hiding what type of court they are so they can enforce statues that are not laws, etc.

Then the argument began that statues are laws.

I told the officers that to the best of my knowledge the State of Florida is a corporation, not a living, breathing person who can sue.

That to the best of my knowledge, the court is a common law court where an injured party who holds a claim against me can sue / bring charges against me and lacking an injured party, the court had no jurisdiction over me.

The lady that was helping me screamed at me that COMMON LAW DOES NOT EXISTS!

Then asked me to get the "hell out her office"!!!

I smiled, said thank you for your time and started to walk out when I was stopped by one of the officers who asked me a ton of questions ranging from "give me your ID to where are you learning this wrong information from?"

(Which I respectfully declined to answer and was escorted out of the courthouse by our friendly police officers)

When I got home, I was so upset at the treatment that I received for simply asking a simple question that I decided to take them to task in the court room floor. (up & coming case) BUT it turns out that I will not be going in front of a REAL JUDGE but a "hearing officer" (still doing research on how to handle these fake judge that I and countless others have appeared before)

Now, the chief judge of Orange County, FL released a video to train jurors as to how their day will go.

At the 6:19 mark of this government instructional video the judge thanks the jurors for helping bring justice "in our common law court"



All of that being said, have people who are using their freemen techniques been right all along?

Freemen went as far as arresting a judge yesterday because the judge refused to state if it was a common law court or if he was operating under his oath.

I am giving you a bump, I am interested in what knowledge comes to surface in your thread.

Looking forward to hearing from anyone with a legal background and what they have to add.

reply to post by butcherguy


Did you see the judge claim common law jurisdiction?

Our system of Common Law justice...

He says it alright.

I'm staggered that someone professing to be in the judicial system actually told you Common Law no longer exists!!!

reply to post by greenovni

His words were.... "in our system of common law justice".

I heard it.

Amazing how ignorant of the laws the courts and cops actually are.

Unfortunately, they are even more ignorant of the Constitution.

The responses you got are what you'd expect from someone caught out in their ignorance, a defensive display to challenge yor right to ask a question they can't answer due to that ignorance. They got defensive because the question strikes at the heart of their legitimacy which they themselves doubt, or they would respond differently.

Strikes me that it's covered by "due process" clause...if you can't get a straight answer from the the people controlling the process about the nature of the process, then you can't effectively mount a defense, and thus are deprived of it.

I will flag and star this. It is very important.

Interesting that the clerk got so defensive... Best of luck in your case.

reply to post by OptimisticPessimist


I know! These people have everything all over the place then they say that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Originally posted by apacheman
Amazing how ignorant of the laws the courts and cops actually are.

Unfortunately, they are even more ignorant of the Constitution.

The responses you got are what you'd expect from someone caught out in their ignorance, a defensive display to challenge yor right to ask a question they can't answer due to that ignorance. They got defensive because the question strikes at the heart of their legitimacy which they themselves doubt, or they would respond differently.

Strikes me that it's covered by "due process" clause...if you can't get a straight answer from the the people controlling the process about the nature of the process, then you can't effectively mount a defense, and thus are deprived of it.

That is exactly the problem I am having...

According to the court, I owe money and they have a right to suspend anything under my name, take me to jail for 180 days for contempt for not paying etc...

All of this according to statue! They hit me with the statue, so I started doing research from "top to bottom"

Top being the Florida constitution which under article 3 - section 6 states the following:

Laws.—Every law shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, and the subject shall be briefly expressed in the title. No law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title only. Laws to revise or amend shall set out in full the revised or amended act, section, subsection or paragraph of a subsection. The enacting clause of every law shall read: “Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:”

Notice the important sentence:

The enacting clause of every law shall read: “Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:

of EVERY law SHALL read...

The statue that they are trying to enforce on me does not have the enacting clause, which to my understanding, makes it VOID!

As a matter of fact, none of the statues have the enacting clause, now watch these judges claim that statues are not law when I show up to court!!!

reply to post by greenovni


star and flag for your efforts. i will keep an eye on this matter both sides of the pond. good luck with the case.
2nd
regards fakedirt

Your story is an interesting one, sounds to me like you are trying to figure out a way to get out of some ticket, by saying the system is faulted. If that was feasable then everyone would do it. I think your pretty screwed either way. Every courthouse knows the reason they collect tickets is to pay their pockets and if they allow you to use some excuse to get out of it well they get less money. Good Luck though the system is bull and my question is why are traffic tickets so expensive when the public would totally decrease the cost of a ticket, since it has little to no effect on the speeding in the nation.

Brace yourself.

You will be interfering with another things that "doesn't exist".... the fact that the State (States actually) rely on fines and penalties as a revenue source. This also accounts for the proliferation of summons' that are remediable by the paying of fines.

Our legal system is a mess... and most seasoned judiciary members know it. It begins with their occupancy of what they almost routinely refer to as 'their' courtrooms... as if they authority they are wielding comes from God, and not the people.

I am sorry you discovered, the hard way, that in order to challenge a procedural aspect of the law you need a lawyer willing to represent you. As a non-BAR member you have no standing. You may always defend yourself pro-se, (Constitutionally speaking), but outside of that the BAR monopoly stands as an iron-clad guild which you cannot breach without breaking laws - unless a judge sincerely supports the inquiry... and then other higher-level judges will simply void the errant judges implicit challenge.

I am no lawyer, I also have no standing, and those with no standing are expected to remain in humble submissive ignorance.

That's how the guild works.

In a theoretical fantasy world, where you don't have to fear the consequences, you may file as part of your discovery, direct questions regarding jurisdiction as long as they are directly relevant to the outcome of the case, so asking the nature of the court you are being tried in is not out of order. However, you will be dealing with an Administrative Judge, not a legal professional... therefore all challenges will be seen as probable contempt... and most judges get to end objections with finality on that note. You will end up being barred from asking the question... and good luck finding any court willing to review that decree.

Originally posted by thegoods724
Your story is an interesting one, sounds to me like you are trying to figure out a way to get out of some ticket, by saying the system is faulted. If that was feasable then everyone would do it. I think your pretty screwed either way. Every courthouse knows the reason they collect tickets is to pay their pockets and if they allow you to use some excuse to get out of it well they get less money. Good Luck though the system is bull and my question is why are traffic tickets so expensive when the public would totally decrease the cost of a ticket, since it has little to no effect on the speeding in the nation.

Nope, not trying to get out of some ticket, now, is the system faulted? Of course!

Now, you are calling the constitution "some excuse" and that is exactly what will happen in court which will open the door to an automatic appeal. The constitution can never be "some excuse"

Just in case you did not read the constitutional implications, here they are below:

According to the court, I owe money and they have a right to suspend anything under my name, take me to jail for 180 days for contempt for not paying etc...

All of this according to statue! They hit me with the statue, so I started doing research from "top to bottom"

Top being the Florida constitution which under article 3 - section 6 states the following:


Laws.—Every law shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, and the subject shall be briefly expressed in the title. No law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title only. Laws to revise or amend shall set out in full the revised or amended act, section, subsection or paragraph of a subsection. The enacting clause of every law shall read: “Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:”



Notice the important sentence:


The enacting clause of every law shall read: “Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:



of EVERY law SHALL read...

The statue that they are trying to enforce on me does not have the enacting clause, which to my understanding, makes it VOID!

As a matter of fact, none of the statues have the enacting clause, now watch these judges claim that statues are not law when I show up to court!!!

Originally posted by thegoods724
...... sounds to me like you are trying to figure out a way to get out of some ticket, by saying the system is faulted. If that was feasable then everyone would do it.....

That sounds to me like another reason the system never gets fixed; acquiescence.

Perhaps the law should be logical - consistent - and clear..... If we haven't the right to question it; it should say so in the law itself. To paraphrase a line form a historical figure "I prefer my despotism pure, without the base alloy of hypocrisy."

If we are to be subject to laws based upon the foundation proclaimed by the government, then they need to define where they decide to limit the citizens rights... not pretend we have them and then bury the reality behind walls of authority and layered bureaucratic policy disguised as "law."

.... Frankly, the reason "everybody doesn't challenge the nature of the court" is because lawyers ALWAYS advise against it. It's a BAR thing.

Originally posted by Maxmars
Brace yourself.

You will be interfering with another things that "doesn't exist".... the fact that the State (States actually) rely on fines and penalties as a revenue source. This also accounts for the proliferation of summons' that are remediable by the paying of fines.

Our legal system is a mess... and most seasoned judiciary members know it. It begins with their occupancy of what they almost routinely refer to as 'their' courtrooms... as if they authority they are wielding comes from God, and not the people.

I am sorry you discovered, the hard way, that in order to challenge a procedural aspect of the law you need a lawyer willing to represent you. As a non-BAR member you have no standing. You may always defend yourself pro-se, (Constitutionally speaking), but outside of that the BAR monopoly stands as an iron-clad guild which you cannot breach without breaking laws - unless a judge sincerely supports the inquiry... and then other higher-level judges will simply void the errant judges implicit challenge.

I am no lawyer, I also have no standing, and those with no standing are expected to remain in humble submissive ignorance.

That's how the guild works.

In a theoretical fantasy world, where you don't have to fear the consequences, you may file as part of your discovery, direct questions regarding jurisdiction as long as they are directly relevant to the outcome of the case, so asking the nature of the court you are being tried in is not out of order. However, you will be dealing with an Administrative Judge, not a legal professional... therefore all challenges will be seen as probable contempt... and most judges get to end objections with finality on that note. You will end up being barred from asking the question... and good luck finding any court willing to review that decree.

Agreed with you 100% but what the administrative judge in my particular case fails to see that we have another weapon. That weapon is people who are pissed off at the current system.

All it takes is to show that a fake judge (administrative assistant) is acting as a judge, not following the FL constitution as sworn judges are supposed to do.

An easy story for my local newspaper

Now, am I scared of contempt of court charges, nope, I've lost all fear of these people long time ago.

Originally posted by greenovni

All it takes is to show that a fake judge (administrative assistant) is acting as a judge, not following the FL constitution as sworn judges are supposed to do.

An easy story for my local newspaper

Now, am I scared of contempt of court charges, nope, I've lost all fear of these people long time ago.

I think the appointment of Administrative judges by political committees is a standard practice. I wouldn't go broadcasting the whole 'fake judges' angle without more consideration... They may not be lawyers or BAR members, (and yet they may) but they are authorized by the state to adjudicate cases... Anyway... find the nearest law school and ask some 3rd year law student to answer the same questions you asked at the courthouse.... you may be amused at the 'kind' of response you get. Just a thought.

I've got to S & F this; OP this is one of the most fascinating discussions I've seen on here. Maxmars, your input is really eye-opening, thanks.

reply to post by greenovni

They (court officers) will always tell you this, and the cops will too. However, there are but two kinds of court here in the US, criminal, or civil, and if the court is neither one, then it is an illegal court. The think is they, the Law Society go by and use the Common Law, for you it's "statuary law," read that, "Corporate Rules." Try this sometime, go into the courtroom, and when they read your name, respond with, I am the secured party." As long as you do not admit to being the one on the document they are reading to you, you are not there. You have to admit to being the "Strawman," and you have to waive all of your Rights. I will not go into cases here, too many will jump on and say It don't work. But I have managed to stay out of jail for many years now using the Common Law defense.

reply to post by greenovni


More power to your elbow mate!

Well done for standing your ground, and for not being intimidated...which is one of their main weapons to get you to crumble and accept their jurisdiction over you.

NEVER answer yes if a police officer says to you " Do you understand"? If you answer in the affirmative by saying yes i do, or yes i understand you, you are GIVING jurisdiction to the police officer, which means you become subject to corporate law, and effectively relinquish your common law rights.

In 'Legalese' (a language that looks like, sounds like and is spelt like English, but the words have very different meanings) if a police officer or judge etc says the word 'Understand', what he or she is REALLY saying is "You will STAND UNDER me, IOW, you submit to my authority)

Don't say yes. Normally, the tactic used is for the officer to say that they have the right to do X,Y or Z (even if they do not) and when you point out that they're wrong, or something else that goes against what they are saying to you, the police officer's voice volume is significantly raised, and they will deliver the line 'Do you understand or do you understand me' etc.

So now you know what to look out for...it's almost a reflex action to say yes, when someone says 'understand'?! be careful you don't fall for it.

I'd also make a detailed note who that Judge is that admitted the court was a common law court if i were you.

You can use it to claim president if you encounter another cow like you did last time.

Another thing you might want to think about, is not giving the court jurisdiction over you either.

When the judge comes in, DO NOT STAND UP or get to your feet...this is similar to the 'Understand' thing, where the act of standing up for the court officials (judge or magistrate) when ordered to, means exactly the same thing as saying that you understand...iow, your giving up your common law lawful rights, and giving your consent to fall under the corporate courts jurisdiction. If you do NOT give your consent to the court, they have NO jurisdiction over you.

Did you mention a statute? An act?

These are NOT laws. They are 'legal' acts and statutes, and while they may be 'legal', they most certainly are NOT lawful...big difference.

Lawful = Common law

Legal = Corporate law

Act's and Statutes can only be acted upon in a 'legal' sense if you give your CONSENT for them, if you gave no consent, they do not apply and the 'legal' court has has no jurisdiction over you.

Unless you expressly consent to the proceedings of a legal court, the only 'person' a 'legal' court has jurisdiction over is MISTER Joe Bloggs (Mr.), and who is MISTER Joe Bloggs? It's your birth certificate!! Take that into court and present it in full view of the court official, that's who they have a 'legal' dealing with, NOT the Freeman called Joe Bloggs (NO Mr.).

Since you say your case is a civil matter, if the entity bringing the case against you is a company or corporation, they have no jurisdiction over you UNLESS you consent to allow them to. If it was a private individual, then you can be tried under common law if you have harmed them or their property, or you have defrauded them or made bad contracts with them. NOTHING else applies.

Good luck, and i seriously recommend reading up on the Freeman movement...one slip up and they have you.

Originally posted by Maxmars

Originally posted by greenovni

All it takes is to show that a fake judge (administrative assistant) is acting as a judge, not following the FL constitution as sworn judges are supposed to do.

An easy story for my local newspaper

Now, am I scared of contempt of court charges, nope, I've lost all fear of these people long time ago.

I think the appointment of Administrative judges by political committees is a standard practice. I wouldn't go broadcasting the whole 'fake judges' angle without more consideration... They may not be lawyers or BAR members, (and yet they may) but they are authorized by the state to adjudicate cases... Anyway... find the nearest law school and ask some 3rd year law student to answer the same questions you asked at the courthouse.... you may be amused at the 'kind' of response you get. Just a thought.

I see that it is standard practice but the problem is that no matter how we put this, they are not judges, who are performing judicial duties.

That alone is fraud at least in my eyes...

+ there has to be a way to remove the admin assistant and move the case to a real judge & a jury of 12