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

reply to post by Rastus3663


Jury nullification is another option the people have. Refuse to convict people of any and all victimless crimes and sooner or later the judiciary will get the point.

Originally posted by Rastus3663
reply to post by Josephus23

 

From the US Constitution

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Where are you getting your information?

This appears to me like a non sequitur fallacy.

I have never said that the courts do not have power, but what I am saying is that their power of judgment is limited to three different types of courtrooms.

-criminal
-civil
-admiralty

and that is all.

The quote from the Constitution that you have supplied simply enumerates the chain of command concerning the court system of the US. It does not in any way describe the difference between statute, code, and law.

reply to post by Rastus3663


That my friend is directly quoted out of the Constitution of the United States of America...you should read it and know it because that is what the USA is supposed to be all about that is what our forefathers fought so hard to give us!

Originally posted by Rastus3663
reply to post by daddio

 

Stare decisis refers to case law "let the decision stand". It's been quite awhile since I've had any classes regarding the law. and I am not an attorney, and I don't give legal advice, but I seem to remember that common law only applies in the absence of a statute.

Nope.

Wrong way around. Statute law (admiralty law) only applies if CONSENT has been given to stand under it's authority and jurisdiction. No consent, no jurisdiction. In which case, common law applies.

And (very) basically, under common law if there's no injured or harmed sovereign (other individual or individuals), no sovereign's property has been taken damaged or destroyed, and no sovereign has committed deliberate fraud against another, including bad contracts..then NO CRIME has been committed, as there is no sovereign victim.

The ONLY way there can be a crime committed in the above scenarios, is if the sovereign gives his or her consent to the authority and jurisdiction of the Admiralty/maritime court (tacit or overt consent applies).

reply to post by Josephus23

I don't follow your logic.

their power of judgment is limited to three different types of courtrooms.

The constitution clearly states that congress has the authority to establish whatever types of courts it deems necessary.

reply to post by spikey


You are very much mistaken.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Case law is the reported decisions of selected appellate and other courts (called courts of first impression) which make new interpretations of the law and, therefore, can be cited as precedents in a process known as stare decisis. These interpretations are distinguished from statutory law which are the statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies; regulatory law which are regulations established by governmental agencies based on statutes; and in some states, common law which are the generally accepted laws carried to the United States from England. Trials and hearings which are not selected as 'courts of first impression' do not have rulings that become case law; therefore, these rulings cannot be precedents for future court decisions.[1][2]

reply to post by RickyD


What article of the constitution are you quoting?

reply to post by spikey


Just noticed you are in England; are you presenting English legal interpretations or American interpretations?

reply to post by greenovni


What ever you find will be a help to everyone, an account from a human being with the experience is always comforting. Good luck in your journey.

-with peace, mallardduck

reply to post by RickyD


Try to watch the more patriotic than thou junior; I've served since the first Gulf War and just returned from Iraq in August; hasn't changed much.

reply to post by Josephus23

Article III Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Source

Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795. Note History The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Source

Now when it say's cases in Law and Equity law means Common Law and that's how it pertains to jurisdiction. I also added the 11th Amendment because that and I think a small clause in the 6th Amendment are the only pertaining to Article 3 Section 2 of the US of A Constitution. These are just the type of things that you aren't taught in school and most people don't understand or even comprehend (mostly due to the language used) and so shrink away from it and take the word of those who are obviously not looking out for your best interest.

And if they told you about this then a lot of people would be outta jobs and the Government wouldn't make nearly a fraction of what they do now!

Since when is it ok to prosecute a victimless crime? who are you prosecuting for? Do you think a court should have the right to tell you how to act even if it not harming anything but yourself? If you answer yes on that last one you would fit in in Nazi Germany quite well!

Originally posted by Rastus3663
reply to post by Josephus23

 

I don't follow your logic.

their power of judgment is limited to three different types of courtrooms.

The constitution clearly states that congress has the authority to establish whatever types of courts it deems necessary.

Any court it deems necessary?

Really?

So would it be lawful for Congress to ordain to establish a Kangaroo court for example? A court where the determination as to both the guilt and penalty imposed upon the defendant, is decided and concluded before even any evidence is heard or presented..?

Going by your interpretation, if i may say so, it sounds a lot like you imagine Congress, your employed representatives, can basically decide to establish any type of court *system* they wish, without consent from their employers - the sovereign public. They cannot.

Even if they had, it would not be lawful and so would be null and void and not applicable to the sovereign public, unless they gave consent to be subject to the authority and jurisdiction of whatever court happens to have been established, Kangaroo or otherwise.

My interpretation of the quote you posted, is that Congress has the power and right to establish lawful inferior courts, that is to say, inferior courts adhering to common law, which could only lawfully try crimes where there is a human victim. They can also establish inferior courts based on Admiralty law, but these will *not* be lawful courts, only legal courts, and a legal court only has jurisdiction over a sovereign if, and only if that sovereign grants or hands authority over to the Admiralty court by consenting to do so. (tacit or overt consent is irrelevant, implied means you consent)

No consent, no jurisdiction.

Originally posted by Maxmars

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.

edit on 8-3-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)

Before you go so incredibly rudely insulting the professional organization of the legal profession in each state, you and every other person who has posted utter tripe on this thread should go and do some legal research into what a STATUTE is and what the COMMON LAW is.

You would also do well to avail yourself of knowledge of secondary legislation - a vast number of by-laws are enacted on the basis of primary legislation. Can you imagine how grossly inefficient state legislatures would be if they had to personally approve every single legal rule in enforcement in any given jurisdiction? Nothing would ever get done.

Before you all mouth and off and whinge about the lawyers being so 'evil' (despite lawyers being those same people who stand up in court and try to save you from the execution chamber, in the face of overwhelming hatred from the public and from the needlessly politicised judges on the bench) you should do some god-damned research. The level of ignorance and bare-faced rudeness towards members of the legal profession in this thread is both breathtaking and disgusting.


Mod Note: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

reply to post by spikey


Yes, really;

Between 1938 and 1969, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) hunted political radicals. In hundreds of public hearings, this congressional panel set out to expose and punish citizens whom it deemed guilty of holding "un-American" views—fascism and communism. From government to labor, academia, and Hollywood, the committee aggressively pursued so-called subversives. It used Congress's subpoena power to force citizens to appear before it, holding them in CONTEMPT if they did not testify. HUAC's tactics of scandal, innuendo, and the threat of imprisonment disrupted lives and ruined careers. After years of mounting criticism, Congress renamed HUAC in 1969 and finally abolished it in 1975.

HUAC came under fire in the late 1950s and early 1960s. After turning its attention on labor leaders, the committee at last provoked the U.S. Supreme Court: the Court's 1957 decision in Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 77 S. Ct. 1173, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1273, overturned the contempt conviction of a man who refused to answer all of HUAC's questions, and, importantly, set broad limits on the power of congressional inquiry.

If that wasn't a kangeroo court I don't know what is; and nowhere is it limited to common law. To me the FISA court is the new kangeroo court enacted by Congress.

Originally posted by spikey

Originally posted by Rastus3663
reply to post by daddio

 

Stare decisis refers to case law "let the decision stand". It's been quite awhile since I've had any classes regarding the law. and I am not an attorney, and I don't give legal advice, but I seem to remember that common law only applies in the absence of a statute.

Nope.

Wrong way around. Statute law (admiralty law) only applies if CONSENT has been given to stand under it's authority and jurisdiction. No consent, no jurisdiction. In which case, common law applies.

And (very) basically, under common law if there's no injured or harmed sovereign (other individual or individuals), no sovereign's property has been taken damaged or destroyed, and no sovereign has committed deliberate fraud against another, including bad contracts..then NO CRIME has been committed, as there is no sovereign victim.

The ONLY way there can be a crime committed in the above scenarios, is if the sovereign gives his or her consent to the authority and jurisdiction of the Admiralty/maritime court (tacit or overt consent applies).

Although I will confess to not having taken any classes in American law (although I will be pursuing my Master of Laws in the United States after the summer), where you get these ideas of statutes being consent-based from, I do not know.

If your consent was required in order for a statute to enact a binding law, then the entire purpose of the statute would be voided as (with criminal statutes) defendants would simply refuse to accept acknowledge the authority of the state to prosecute under the relevant statutory provision.

Instead of the OP making a complete farce of his defence on his court day and making a mockery of himself, he should consult a lawyer that has been admitted to the Florida State Bar; then perhaps he might actually receive some valid advice about how to win or mitigate his losses.

reply to post by Rastus3663


If I appear "more patriotic than thou" it is because your are not acting as such in this case. This topic nor the arguments have nothing to do with you being a vet. or the wars you've been in. Also what I posted was from the Constitution of the USA. It is pretty clear this is the supreme law in this country and has supreme jurisdiction over the land hence the Supreme court and it's ability to over rule lesser courts. There can be as many kinds of courts as the Judiciary branch wants but that doesn't change the fact that statutes apply to Corporations and not the flesh and blood people of this country which is why you are incorporated at birth. If you consent jurisdiction no matter how it is given the statutes apply to you as the legal fiction you have accepted represents you. If you can prove that wrong please do but I will only accept facts with sources I gave mine lets see yours. This whole junior thing IMO is you not knowing how to argue the point and resorting to attacking my age but old people as well as young can be just as ignorant as each other age means nothing if you didn't learn along the way...not saying you didn't just saying STHU with all that junior sh-t!

reply to post by duality90


I agree with you that the majority of the posters need to do more research; but I doubt that you'll hear much sympathy for attorneys. It's the one group that is almost universally hated.

reply to post by RickyD

Your inability to read and comprehend appears to be limitless. Tell me, in how many lawsuits have you been the prevailing party?

And do you have at least one college degree?