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

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by duality90

 

Are you trying to tell me that every law passed by Congress or state legislature is in fact, not a law because it has not been sent for referendum by everyone? Are you insane?

Legislatures only pass statutes that restrict government through regulation. Those statutes do not apply to the people. That is the scope of thier authority by consent of the people. However they now overstep that authority and attorneys and police enforce thier decrees unlawfully on the people. "Government derives thier just powers by the consent of the governed". Democracy or mob rules does not constitute tacit consent for all to be subject to unlawful statute. The people being ignorant and through coercion intimidation and fear comply which allows attorneys like you to make an above average living off thier misery and suffering, producing and contributing nothing to society but perpetuating misery and suffering of your fellow man. As the saying goes one attorney in a town will starve, two in the same town will make a good living.

edit on 11-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

You keep on saying 'consent of the people'. Do you intend that to mean that there has to be consent every single time a law is passed? Or is it implicit consent in the sense that you impliedly agree to abide by the highway code when driving a vehicle on the road?

I don't honestly know how you can stand up and say that no statute ever passed by a legislature, be it federal or state, applies to people unless they directly consent to be bound by it. What you have said is literally a non-truth. Are you trying to tell me that when Texas (as an example as I have lived there) changed the drinking age to 21, that that statute was not binding upon the people because they did not consent to it? Because I'm pretty certain most 18-21s sure as hell didn't directly consent to that (as you keep claiming a statute needs in order to have force of law) and yet, lo and behold, they and everyone else in the state of texas are bound to observe that drinking age, lest they be hauled before a court.

Please, explain your logic as it currently makes no legal sense whatsoever. And don't just go quoting some state or federal constitution, verbatim quoting means nothing. Explain how and why you have reached the conclusion you have.

I waded into this topic a while back, and like Heff, I had a hard time finding any significant victories, only people walking out of court claiming victory and then ...

I am intrigued by all of this, however I have to ask the end game question. And I am not trying to be antagonistic, I seriously want to know what the landscape looks like under a pure common law. There are a lot of fines that I agree are a cooked up money making scheme, but If the general principal is that we are not to be charged for victimless crimes can I;

Drive completely wasted as long as I make it home without killing anyone?

Throw concrete blocks out of my 25th floor window as long as they don't land on anyone?

Also, is animal cruelty punishable under common law? Can they be considered a victim?

Everything I have seen seems to be people to people trying to get out of paying some fine or another (Although the OP's complaint seems legitimate, actually far more than that, and seems like it could be fought through "normal" means.).

Anyway, my question is, what freedoms would I have under a pure common law?

And please, before anyone answers, "You're not free now" etc. please address the scenarios above in your post.

Thank you.

Originally posted by duality90

Originally posted by daddio

Originally posted by charles1952
I have seen some wildly incorrect statements on this thread, some that are close to correct and some that are absolutely correct. But for the moment, let's leave all that aside. Let us come together as reasonable people and start from an assumption. Yes, let us assume for this discussion that the Freeman argument is philosophically and politically correct.

Given that, you might ask, what possible objection might I have to everyone on this thread using the Freeman defense whenever they're in legal trouble? My friends, the answer is simple:



IT DOESN'T !@#$%^&*()_ WORK!!!!!!! GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS!!!!!!!!!

I hope you'll forgive me for that outburst, but I find my eyeballs are spinning, veins are throbbing, and my fingers just acted on their own accord. Perhaps we should all retire for some nice tea.

You are wrong. The "Freeman" ideology may not work always but it does work, and if it works once it means the system IS a fraud. The UCC is the way to go, you can do everything, because YOU are the first lien holder of the ALL CAPS corporate fiction NAME. You get the first payment of ANY claim against the "strawman". This IS a fact and if you think there is no "strawman", look it up in Barrons Law Dictionary, 2nd and 3rd editions, WHY would it even be in there if it weren't true and real?

The UCC regulates commercial contracts and nothing else... jesus f**king christ. Do you even know what a lien is!? and STOP saying you are a corporate fiction - you are not. A corporation is a body of two or more people (or one person, occupying an office that outlives the officeholder i.e. Bishop of Durham) which has legal personality in itself and can raise action in its own name as well as have action raised against it. This 'freeman' nonsense is a steaming pile of stinking lies and misconceptions about the law. If you are not a lawyer and have not read thoroughly on the subject, you plainly do not understand the fundamentals of any legal system, let alone the American one. Do you even understand what a strawman is? (it should be noted that that term basically never comes up these days, save in an isolated set of instances). It has absolutely nothing to do with you appearing before a court for a crime (presumably tax evasion since the whole 'freeman' movement is about evading taxation).

Hey I'm not trying to argue but if you could answer these questions I would appreciate it and it would clear up the idea of fraud for me, also the "freeman" movement is not about tax dodging. There are some bad eggs in every group of people the freeman movement to my understanding is about not paying unlawful taxes and not getting punished for victimless crimes.
1. What jurisdiction does a traffic court operate under?
2. Can the "STATE OF____" have a valid cause of action against you? How?
3. Why do they "Force" you to sign a speeding ticket?
4. How can you commit a crime and lose in court without a corpus delicti?
5. Why are you threatened with contempt for not standing for a judge?
6. How can a court have a charge against you?
7. Why are all the courts, police departments, and states listed as corporations?
8. If the legal entity "All caps name" isn't real then why do they never handle anything with your Christian name?
9. Why does the judicial branch not judge both the law and the facts but instead enforces the laws to the letter? (Read the federalist papers on the judicial branch).
10. Why do the police steal your property if you are caught with drugs? Did the property commit the crime?
11. Why is it you are threaten for acting as legal counsel for someone without a BAR card? Even though you have a right to be paid for your work and a BAR card is not a license.
12. How is the bar in a free market economy allowed to have a monopoly?
13. Why are you threatened for challenging jurisdiction even though its a necessary element?

reply to post by duality90

You keep on saying 'consent of the people'. Do you intend that to mean that there has to be consent every single time a law is passed? Or is it implicit consent in the sense that you impliedly agree to abide by the highway code when driving a vehicle on the road?

I don't honestly know how you can stand up and say that no statute ever passed by a legislature, be it federal or state, applies to people unless they directly consent to be bound by it. What you have said is literally a non-truth. Are you trying to tell me that when Texas (as an example as I have lived there) changed the drinking age to 21, that that statute was not binding upon the people because they did not consent to it? Because I'm pretty certain most 18-21s sure as hell didn't directly consent to that (as you keep claiming a statute needs in order to have force of law) and yet, lo and behold, they and everyone else in the state of texas are bound to observe that drinking age, lest they be hauled before a court.

Please, explain your logic as it currently makes no legal sense whatsoever. And don't just go quoting some state or federal constitution, verbatim quoting means nothing. Explain how and why you have reached the conclusion you have.

It is really quite simple my friend. The state and federal constitutions are the law that those respective governmental bodies must abide by. So taking your Texas example of the drinking age the Texas constitution gives no authority to the legislature to tell the people at what age they can drink hence the legislature is acting outside its scope. Just like the federal constitution gives no authority to the legislature to tell the people they must buy health care or what substances that can put in their bodies etc. the constitutions both state and federal are restrictions on the legislatures, judicial and executive branches of government not on the people. Those branches of government have no authority to legislate or act outside of those parameters and can only act on those things specifically defined in them period. A reasonable study of history of the founding of the several states who formed a union for mutual defense ad free trade ONLY will bear this out.

Of course I wouldn't expect you to have any respect for the constitutions as you show your disdain for them in your last paragraph, because your livelihood depends on operating completely outside them along with the legislatures judicial and executive branches these days as part of the coercion, intimidation, and fear machine that places people in bondage to the illusion of statutes being law applying to men and women.

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by duality90

 

You keep on saying 'consent of the people'. Do you intend that to mean that there has to be consent every single time a law is passed? Or is it implicit consent in the sense that you impliedly agree to abide by the highway code when driving a vehicle on the road?

I don't honestly know how you can stand up and say that no statute ever passed by a legislature, be it federal or state, applies to people unless they directly consent to be bound by it. What you have said is literally a non-truth. Are you trying to tell me that when Texas (as an example as I have lived there) changed the drinking age to 21, that that statute was not binding upon the people because they did not consent to it? Because I'm pretty certain most 18-21s sure as hell didn't directly consent to that (as you keep claiming a statute needs in order to have force of law) and yet, lo and behold, they and everyone else in the state of texas are bound to observe that drinking age, lest they be hauled before a court.

Please, explain your logic as it currently makes no legal sense whatsoever. And don't just go quoting some state or federal constitution, verbatim quoting means nothing. Explain how and why you have reached the conclusion you have.

It is really quite simple my friend. The state and federal constitutions are the law that those respective governmental bodies must abide by. So taking your Texas example of the drinking age the Texas constitution gives no authority to the legislature to tell the people at what age they can drink hence the legislature is acting outside its scope. Just like the federal constitution gives no authority to the legislature to tell the people they must buy health care or what substances that can put in their bodies etc. the constitutions both state and federal are restrictions on the legislatures, judicial and executive branches of government not on the people. Those branches of government have no authority to legislate or act outside of those parameters and can only act on those things specifically defined in them period. A reasonable study of history of the founding of the several states who formed a union for mutual defense ad free trade ONLY will bear this out.

Of course I wouldn't expect you to have any respect for the constitutions as you show your disdain for them in your last paragraph, because your livelihood depends on operating completely outside them along with the legislatures judicial and executive branches these days as part of the coercion, intimidation, and fear machine that places people in bondage to the illusion of statutes being law applying to men and women.

It's because verbatim quoting really does not mean anything in a legal sense at all. Plain words are understandable enough to you and me, but certain circumstances arise where a plain construction of the words may not necessarily lead towards a just or equitable result, or even one that accords with common sense. Hence judicial interpretation of statutes.

Can you tell me where the power of state and federal legislatures to pass statutes regulating the conduct of their residents/citizens is circumscribed? Because as yet everyone (including yourself) has simply just said 'well, they can't do that' without actually explaining, in a legal sense, why that is not correct.

Also, have you never perhaps considered that instead of you having discovered some grand legal conspiracy, and really that all laws do not apply to people, that perhaps you or someone else has invented a conspiracy where you have wanted to see one, particularly in light of the fact that, in a legal sense, statutes (state and federal) very plainly and explicitly apply to people? If you say 'that is not true' you are literally blinding your eyes to the reality of the situation.

Everything you have said, as far as I am aware, is completely incorrect, and you have yet to rebut my assertions with anything other than your own assertion that statutes cannot apply to people without their consent. On that logic, why should common law definitions/remedies/relief apply to people who refuse to consent? You seem to fundamentally misunderstand (either through ignorance or your own active volition) the entire point of having a judicial system. If it was based on direct consent then nothing the system would cease to have purpose.

As yet, noone has actually put forward any cogent legal argument or evidence to rebut the presumption (read: fact) that statutes regulate the behaviour of individuals.

Unless you wish to be seen in the eyes of those reading this topic as someone making baseless assertions with no solid legal evidence to support that argument, I would suggest you either concede that what you are saying is patently wrong, or that you are unable to justify your claims.

I am telling you that 2 and 2 make a four - and yet you insist that 2 and 2 make a five. I do not understand why.

What is it with the title, "Video: Judge Admits That The Court Is A Common Law Court" stuff?

Of course it is. And you know what, law students spend the vast majority of their time studying common law concepts and not statutes. Bar exams also focus primarily on common law.

Originally posted by IamCorrect
What is it with the title, "Video: Judge Admits That The Court Is A Common Law Court" stuff?

Of course it is. And you know what, law students spend the vast majority of their time studying common law concepts and not statutes. Bar exams also focus primarily on common law.

Those with no legal training are quite insistent that the common law is something quite different from what law students and lawyers know it as (go figure - the lawyers apparently don't know what they're talking about).

The blind ignorance of some in this thread in furtherance of the absurd beliefs propogated is just staggering.

Thank God someone else has common sense.


Although it should be noted that statute plays an important role. Out of statutory interpretation, new additions to the common law are born.

reply to post by duality90


The only schooled subject that is not open to opinion and indoctrination is math. The rest of the subjects are subject to interpretation and and bias. Even in math though, there is some crap involved, like statistics. Going to school doesn't make you smart, and doesn't make you an expert. It makes you wealthy enough to pay for brainwashing.

Dear TKDRL, thanks for being so passionate. All right where are we? Lawyers are scum, they lie to protect the system they get rich from, getting a degree in a subject doesn't make you an expert in it, going to school makes you wealthy enough to pay for school, you're not taught anything in school (except for math) the rest is brainwashing. Doesn't that all seem a little extreme to you?

Look at some other school courses. Consider spelling and grammar. Those are subjects that I don't think have much bias. Spelling says "This is how you spell the word, no choices." Grammar says "There are rules for constructing proper sentences, etc." Lots of subjects have definitions and rules.

Law is a little like that. There are things that are just given, say the elements of a tort. There are also rules that specify how things are to be interpreted or what procedures have to be followed. Sure, somebody who has only spent three years studying it may make a mistake, but they're better off than someone who picks up a few law books from the tens of thousands that have been written.

That's why I took the position I did in my most recent post. If you want to forget my opinion or any other opinion on the internet, fine. Pay attention to the Supreme Court's opinions. They have the power to say you're right or you're wrong and make it stick. What they say goes. And so far, the Freemen have lost all of them I've heard of.

You don't have to "Bow to the Man." But insisting on the Freeman position is a losing strategy.

14 pages dedicated to ignorance....awesome.
Op, my suggestion to you is hire an attorney.
You sound like the type that chants the mantra; "I know my rights".
Someone that carries around the Constitution like it was the Bible and believes the literal interpretation of both.
"Is this a contract court"? WTF.
...and to the genius (a couple of post before me)....statutes often are born from common law....not the other way around.
If someone has a problem, and it isn't covered by a statute, then the court will look to common law for a remedy.
You would have sounded a bit more learned if you asked the court people about jurisdiction or venue even.

reply to post by duality90


I am not going to get into the whole "freeman movement" thing, as I know little about it, and do not understand many of the contentions I have heard made by people representing themselves as a part of this movement, but I will jump in at this point and gladly speak to the law, and its relationship to statutes, ordinances, and other regulatory schemes created by government.

Legislation is not law, it is merely evidence of law. The map is not the territory, and words are not the thing that is being described, and legislation is not law. Either legislation describes a law or it does something else. If legislation describes a law then all people are subject to that law, as all law is simple, true, universal, and absolute. If a legislative act creates some sort of regulatory scheme that is arbitrary and capricious, then it is not law, but merely legislation. If it is not law, then the scope of jurisdiction created by this arbitrary and capricious act of legislation is very narrow and does not apply to all people at all times.

In regards to the laws of justice, the law begins with the simple foundation of the individuals right to self defense, defense of property, or defense of others who are in immediate danger of peril or harm. All people, everywhere, at all times have the simple, true, universal, and absolute right to defend themselves, their loved ones, (or even strangers if necessary), and their property from harm.

From this foundation we find the legal basis for just government. That legal basis is the right to lawful self defense. If all individuals have the right to self defense, then it follows that people have the right to collectively form a union to act in defense of those people and their property. This is the only just reason for government, to protect the rights of individuals, and failing that, to offer remedy in the event that a right, or rights have been disparaged.

Thus, an act of legislation proclaiming murder illegal is an act of legislation that is describing a law and as such all people, at all times, are subject to this law...not to the act of legislation, but to the law that is described by that act of legislation. The act of murder is an abrogation and derogation of another persons right to life. All people, everywhere, at all times have the right to life, and the only just cause for taking another persons life is as an act of self defense, or defense of some other person in immediate peril of losing their life from another intent on disparaging that right to life. Therefore, while all people at all times have the right to life, any person who decides to disregard that right and attempts to extinguish the life of another has placed their own life in peril as the law is clear, and all people, everywhere, at all times, not only have the right to life, they have the right to defend their life. This is not a matter of one persons right trumping another persons right, as the person attempting murder does not have the right to do so.

Nobody has the right, outside of lawful defense, to harm another. Whatever people do, and outside of defense, that causes no harm, they do by right. These rights are not legal grants of legislation, they are natural laws that exist with or without legislation. The right to speech, the right to publish, the right worship freely, the right to peaceably assemble, the right to keep and bear arms, are all rights that exist with or without any legislative act declaring them rights. The infant who wails at night until satisfied does not do so because of a First Amendment, or a United Nations universal right granted to these infants, they simply wail because they instinctively understand they have the right to do so.

If it is a right, it is law, and if it is law, it exists regardless of what legislatures, lawyers, or governments have to say about it. Those governments that acknowledge rights as being unalienable through legislation have enacted legislation that describes law. They have not granted any right, but instead have created some form of prohibition on government regarding those rights. The Bill of Rights is a fine example of this. The Bill of Rights does not grant people rights, it prohibits government from acting in certain ways that would disparage or deny these rights. The Bill of Rights is not law, they are legislative acts that describe law. The law is natural and exist with or without the Bill of Rights acknowledgment of that law.

That is the simple, true, universal, and absolute short of law, that law is a natural phenomenon and applies to all people, at all times, everywhere. This is not to argue that these laws prevent people from acting otherwise, they do not, but what these laws do is act in a natural way where actions come with consequence. The consequence to murder is an absence of justice. Justice is not something we recognize until there is an absence of it. Any denial or disparagement of a right constitutes an absence of justice, and when that absence is apparent, people universally understand justice. Justice then, is the harmonious balance between people, where each person respects the rights of all other people. When this balance is upended, or affected to create an unbalance, it is the lack of justice that is recognizable.

When governments act in a way to maintain a balance of justice, and failing that, act in ways to facilitate remedy for some specific denial or disparagement of a right, then government is acting in accordance to the law. When government acts outside the scope of this jurisdiction they may or may not be acting lawfully. Not all legislative acts must necessarily describe law, and there can be legislative acts that move beyond the scope of law and into other areas that can still be lawful, but only if these legislative acts do not in anyway disparage or deny the unalienable rights of individuals. Any legislative act that denies or disparages the right(s) of an individual is an unlawful act of legislation.

Creating an ordinance, or a legislative act that prohibits people from doing what is a right to do are examples of unlawful acts of legislation. An ordinance, or legislative act, however, that prohibits or regulates an artificial body, such as a corporation from doing certain things is neither a description of law, nor is it unlawful. It is not unlawful to regulate corporations or to impose prohibitions on corporations because corporations exist by grant of charter, not by natural law. The grants of charters granting a corporation the right to exist are not law, they are merely acts of legislation, and they are lawful as long as they remain limited to granting artificial bodies rights of existence, and any regulatory schemes, or prohibitions regarding these corporations are only lawful as long as the enforcement of these prohibitions and regulatory schemes remains within the scope of that jurisdiction. The moment these prohibitions and regulatory schemes step outside of that scope of jurisdiction and presume to prohibit, or regulate the natural rights of people, this is unlawful, and as such, natural people are not subject to such legislation.

The standard by which government can find the lawful authority to regulate or prohibit the actions of natural people has to be understood in simple, true, universal, and absolute ways that are not at all arbitrary or capricious. That understanding is very simply, that which causes no harm is done by right, and if the harm caused was done in the defense of life, liberty, or property, then this harm was done by right as well. Within this understanding of law, then any criminal acts that exist, do so because there is a demonstrable victim of that crime. The notion of the so called "victimless crime" is not a lawful act of legislation, and all too often is a blatant unlawful act of legislation that abrogates and/or derogates the right(s) of an individual, or several people.

This is the long and the short of law. If a legislative act has lawful authority, then all people are subject to it. If a legislative act deigns to move beyond lawful authority and into legality, legislatures or government can do this, such as the grant of incorporation, but governments cannot expect to move beyond this and into the arbitrary and capricious acts of controlling people based upon whimsy without having to suffer the consequences. The consequences of tyranny has a long history evident since time immemorial. Tyrannies will always face resistance. Tyrannies do not face resistance because those resisting are insane, kooky, or lack some special priest class knowledge of law, tyrannies face resistance by people who know the law.

Would that the priest class lawyer set know the law instead of claiming some special knowledge in legality, then they would be people worthy of admiration instead of the very common disgust and vilification they have rightly earned.

Originally posted by duality90

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by duality90

 

You keep on saying 'consent of the people'. Do you intend that to mean that there has to be consent every single time a law is passed? Or is it implicit consent in the sense that you impliedly agree to abide by the highway code when driving a vehicle on the road?

I don't honestly know how you can stand up and say that no statute ever passed by a legislature, be it federal or state, applies to people unless they directly consent to be bound by it. What you have said is literally a non-truth. Are you trying to tell me that when Texas (as an example as I have lived there) changed the drinking age to 21, that that statute was not binding upon the people because they did not consent to it? Because I'm pretty certain most 18-21s sure as hell didn't directly consent to that (as you keep claiming a statute needs in order to have force of law) and yet, lo and behold, they and everyone else in the state of texas are bound to observe that drinking age, lest they be hauled before a court.

Please, explain your logic as it currently makes no legal sense whatsoever. And don't just go quoting some state or federal constitution, verbatim quoting means nothing. Explain how and why you have reached the conclusion you have.

I'm no expert by any stretch, but will ask a question. If the public isn't involved in the passing of laws are we not living under a dictatorship? This subject is something I have been pondering...how did we get all these laws/statutes on the books that the common people have no knowledge of? Who gave the people making these statutes/laws the authority to do so?

Originally posted by lellomackin
I waded into this topic a while back, and like Heff, I had a hard time finding any significant victories, only people walking out of court claiming victory and then ...

I am intrigued by all of this, however I have to ask the end game question. And I am not trying to be antagonistic, I seriously want to know what the landscape looks like under a pure common law. There are a lot of fines that I agree are a cooked up money making scheme, but If the general principal is that we are not to be charged for victimless crimes can I;

Drive completely wasted as long as I make it home without killing anyone?

Throw concrete blocks out of my 25th floor window as long as they don't land on anyone?

Also, is animal cruelty punishable under common law? Can they be considered a victim?

Everything I have seen seems to be people to people trying to get out of paying some fine or another (Although the OP's complaint seems legitimate, actually far more than that, and seems like it could be fought through "normal" means.).



I'm mildly curious bout this Free Man stuff myself and no expert, but I'll like to give my POV on your questions.

I'd say yes you can drive home drunk all you want. You should face no punishment unless you kill someone. What's the purpose of punishing someone, for something that may happen?

Same goes for throwing bricks from your window.

I'm unsure concerning animal cruelty. It would depend upon how animals (if) were addressed in Common Law. Though I believe those laws were limited to people. I have no problem with such, because after all animals are animals. It may not be my preference to harm animals but if someone else desires, who am I too punish them?
Anyway, my question is, what freedoms would I have under a pure common law?

And please, before anyone answers, "You're not free now" etc. please address the scenarios above in your post.

Thank you.

edit on 11-3-2011 by lellomackin because: ETA: Can charged with animal cruelty under common law? Would an animal be defined as a victim in that scenario?

edit on 11-3-2011 by lellomackin because: Cause I don't know how to use edit function, lol

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Bravo JPZ!!! Well done as usual and saved me the trouble of responding, and of course you said it much better then I would have. Hey duality90 what Jean Paul Zodeaux said!!!



reply to post by duality90

Those with no legal training are quite insistent that the common law is something quite different from what law students and lawyers know it as (go figure - the lawyers apparently don't know what they're talking about)

Now you're catching on... Finally something I can agree with you on. indeed attorneys don't know what they are talking about! See Jean Paul Zodeaux post above...

To address the claim that the Free Man logic is rubbish:

Even if the practices Free Man use aren't successful, that doesn't mean they are incorrect. It may mean that they are too trapped within a Matrix. Maybe they are being illegally screwed over!

If the corruption is as deep as hinted in various threads, of course Free Man tactics won't work 100% of the time or be provable. If it worked and was provable, many, many, people in government would be in big trouble. Many people would require release from prison. Some positions in society would disappear as there would be no need for them. Basically, our society would be turned upside down for a while.

There would probably be massive lawsuits. People who exist to oppress and rule people would kill themselves as they lose their power. All of these things and more maybe reason this Free Man on the Land stuff is laughed at and "doesn't work".

There's something too this Free Man stuff and I believe it will change society.

Almost forgot I wanted to mention concerning the Judges fleeing the courtrooms. If it were due simply to a person being out of control, how come they don't flee when a criminal is out of control? They merely have the bailiffs control the individual, they don't flee. However when they are asked to state their oath...they flee the courtroom! I've seen murder trials where the defendant becomes aggressive or even break free, and the Judge doesn't flee!

I state again, the Free Men are on to something! It's brewing in my mind and it involves this entire existence. It involves even some religious implications, alien implications and this being a matrix/prison implication.

food for thought;

to the best for my knowledge the National BAR association makes lawyer pass this BAR exam:

"British Accreditation Regency"

bar Law Definition n

A legal obstacle or barrier that prevents or destroys a legal action or claim, especially one that prevents the relitigation of an issue or the formation of a valid contract. See also double jeopardy, estoppel, merger, plea, and res judicata.
v

To prevent, prohibit, or act as a bar to.
n

In bar. As a bar to an action. For example, if a defendant in a criminal action was acquitted earlier of the same charges that he is now accused, he may plead double jeopardy in bar.
adj

At bar. Now before the court. For example, an action that is before the court may be referred to as the case at bar.
n

The legal profession in general.
n

A group of attorneys admitted to practice law in a particular jurisdiction or before a particular court or who practice in a common field or area of expertise in the law.
n

The railing in a courtroom that separates the area used by the judge, lawyers, and court personnel to conduct judicial business from the seating provided for observers. See also bench.

that is enough to blantaly scream the judicial system is actually FUBAR
Fuc|

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
I worked for the Florida Child Support Enforcement Agency for a couple of years.

Even if a child isn't biologically yours, if you signed the BIRTH CERTIFICATE...ha ha...you're that childs father. It will take a judge to get that reversed.

If you missed the summons for paternity...same result.

If you were married to a woman who cheated and the child is proven to biologically be yours....you're the daddy.

The last one is a real kicker...even if it was known you aren't the father, but you play the father role and the child perceives you as father, the judge can rule you as the father in the best interest of the child.

Upholding Paternity FRAUD at its best!

Originally posted by Teckniec

Originally posted by greenovni

Originally posted by Teckniec
Hey mr. green I'm in FL too. If you msg me your email or something maybe we can share our knowledge. I tried to message you but I have to make a certain number of posts. I have been giving my city hell as of late for trying to hide under the color of law for violating my rights.
In regards to the freeman movement, I would say not so effective here in the US, I say our best bet as I think someone mentioned before is to use our constitution and try to get juries educated on their right to nullify laws. Also there are some laws that do help protect you from the government employees 18 U.S.C. § 241& 242. There may be some stuff in your state statues too. The make things difficult so that people wont even try, you just gotta fight till your last breath and show them that you are not going to go down without a fight. Hold them to their social compact. Some common law stuff they still recognize are latin terms like mens rea and corpus delicti but for the most part they will not honor ANYTHING in your favor. Its all a game and if you want to win then study their rules and use it against them, they break their own rules a lot and if you call them out on it its quiet hysterical. Heres some stuff for if your in FL. This is the 1838 original FL constitution, why mention it? well the last section(27) of basic rights

Section 1. That all freemen, when they form a social compact, are equal; and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property and reputation; and of pursuing their own happiness.

Section 2. That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and established for their benefit; and, therefore, they have, at all times, an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may deem expedient.

Section 6. That the right of trial by jury shall forever remain inviolate.

Section 8. That no freeman shall be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or outlawed or exiled, or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the law of the land.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land and I believe common law is part of the law of the land as well.

Section 26. That frequent recurrence to fundamental principles, is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty.

Section 27. That to guard against transgressions upon the rights of the people, we declare that every thing in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and that all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void.

Theres your power that freeman stuff will only get you in deep s***.

Also wanted to add that the purpose of the judicial branch of government is to judge the law as well not just accept whatever the legislator writes, there is no money in doing their job though

Also read the federalist papers regarding the judical branch. You can use that in court I have a case for that....somewhere.

edit on 10-3-2011 by Teckniec because: addition.

I too think that the freement movement, at least now & in my situation would bring more trouble than it is worth. I am going with lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

From what I've seen the best defense is to not plea but answer in the form of a demurr or counter claim for subject matter jurisdiction. Also you want to get the judges oath, if he refuses you can list countless cases any case with a clear lack of jurisdiction is null and void. Don't argue with the judge just if he refuses state your cases and make a note of it on the record and you have grounds to appeal. If he intentionally tries to deny your rights you can go after his bond but thats a dangerous game to play.

How do you do after their bonds? Any info or links?

Originally posted by duality90

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by autowrench

 

Thanks for keeping the helm during my absence autowrench.

It is difficult being a one eyed person in the world of the blind, but it helps if there are two of us.

This is all absurd. You obviously can't tell the truth to someone who wants to believe so fervently in something non-existent. I can't recall what the case name was but look it up... An American court entertained all of these ideas and promptly dismissed them as a ridiculous attempt to disenfranchise the court of its lawful jurisdiction.

Funny how you seem so adamant to prove that the Freeman claim is tripe, but yet you provide absolutely ZERO evidence that refutes what we are saying.

Let me quote you:

I can't recall what the case name was but look it up.

Actually no, you look it up. It is your job to debate, not to be lazy.
If you are so adamant to prove me wrong and this idea is so "absurd", then it should be no problem to google the case name in question and provide it for us.

But even if you did, then the readers should know that the courts are so corrupt that a federal judge can strike down this, and any, lawsuit at will thanks to good ole' Admiralty Law.

This is a perfect example of a grass roots movement that, through petition, had a enough signatures to put a new investigation into the events of 9/11 put on the local ballot for the citizens of New York to vote upon. The investigation would be on the dime of the New York City Council and it would be impartial with oversight from the families of the victims of the tragedy.
But like any completely corrupt court, although WAY more than the necessary signatures were gathered for the initiative, a federal judge put a prompt end to the campaign, disallowing the initiative on the ballot despite state law.

Here is a link

Our courtrooms are jokes and complete products of Admiralty Law.
You can huff and puff all you want about how wrong we are, but where are your links?
We have given you more than enough, but yet all you have are appeals to emotion, non-sequiturs, and arguments against the man.

Your debate techniques are in sore need of an update.

reply to post by duality90


I must again laugh at YOUR ignorance. Stare Decisis. You can not say that cases that have been fought and won in the past matter not now or that an actual law created in the past can be changed or altered now. THAT is unlawful, unconstitutional and makes the new law null and void, Nunc Pro Tunc, for all intents and purpose.

Stop claiming that you know the "law" because you went to school. We know it is all a scam, a Masonic organization or brotherhood of thieves. I have been in court enough to see the handshakes and the patting on the back and the collusion. Sickiening.

YOU do not know or understand Common Law, the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, nor any other LEGAL and binding contractual document. You do not understand what happened in 1913 or in 1933. You obviously think that we are ignorant, are we traded on Wall Street, Yes we are, Dunn and Bradstreet is a good place to find this out. Yes we ARE corporate fictions, ALL current law is Equity law, law by contract. THAT is all there is, you will convince no one any different.

I am sorry to say you are wasting your time here with your BS statements.

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius; A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325; Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Okl. 487, 40 P.2d 1097, 1100. Mention of one thing implies exclusion of another. When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred. Under this maxim, if a statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded. Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition (emphasis mine)


Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius; /inklũwzh(iy)ow yanáyəs ést əksklũwzh(iy)ow oltíriyəs/. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. The certain designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others. Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325. Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition (emphasis mine)


When, in any law or statute, code or regulation, a reference is made to a “person” it is to the exclusion of Natural and sovereign persons or people. This has been held to be truth and fact in all cases.

"The word `person' in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally
includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings., see e.g. 1, U.S.C.
paragraph 1." -- Church of Scientology v. US Department of Justice (1979) 612 F2d 417, 425:
(emphasis mine)

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment... In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) (emphasis mine)

What the OP is talking about is liability. The Child is not his, therefore he is not liable. The "State" must prove up it's claim or cease and desisit under the "color of law". If HE is part of the "State", "the people", then how can he condemn himself or prosecute himself?

If he is to ask the "State" to take the stand, WHO will do this?