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

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Very well done, although I believe that praise from me would be as snowflakes falling into a vocano, but nonetheless sincerely meant. I don't see any of your significant statements that I would disagree with, including where our sympathies should lie. Now if we can only get the Freemen to be a little more skilled in their legal work....

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by duality90

 

Jean Paul Zodeaux repeated the same half-cocked arguments that everyone else has on this thread. He added nothing to the debate that could not be disproven with relative ease and quick perusal of some internet sites (consultation of textbooks wasn't even necessary).

Typical of the priest class lawyer set, all you can do is reify, and like the poser that you are, instead of actually refuting my assertions you instead dismiss those assertions as being "easily dis-proven with relative ease", without yourself dis-proving a damn thing I said.

You are a perfect example of just how dangerous lawyers have become. While lawyers and judges in these modern times love to repeat ad nauseum the aphorism; "A man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client", the tragic reality is that increasingly if a man turns to an attorney for representation that man is not only a fool client, and if that man has you as his attorney, he most assuredly has a fool for a lawyer.

Here is what you have effectively managed to do in this thread, Snidely Whiplash, you have purposefully and willingly put on your black hat and with every post greedily rub your hands together while plotting how you can harm the next person. You have no regard for freedom, and you certainly have no regard for the rights of people. You are a government sycophant through and through, and the thing about governments is that if they are a just government they need no sycophants.

If there were actually such a thing as a wise lawyer in this modern age, and that wise lawyer actually had some respect for the accreditation of attorneys, they would be closely monitoring sites such as this and would not hesitate to pounce on people like you and urge you, nay beg you to shut up. Not that the priest class lawyer set needed your help, but you most assuredly help make them look bad.

All people have the right, when faced with criminal charges, to the competent assistance of counsel. In today's modern age, it would be a grand mistake to simply assume that a licensed attorney would function as that assistance of counsel, let alone competent assistance of counsel. Indeed, if they are a part of the priest class lawyer set they will flat out refuse to be assistance of counsel and insist that a person sign over power of attorney and allow that priest class lawyer to handle their defense. If people today ever hope to have any form of competent assistance of counsel, they must be very, very, careful if they choose a lawyer for that assistance of counsel, and they must never, at any time, sign over power of attorney, and since all people are presumed to know the law, then it is in all peoples best interest to face criminal charges pro per, and then demand their right to assistance of counsel be respected.

Keep posting away Snidely, I with all my craft and skill of language could never do the damage to the priest class lawyer set that you have managed to do yourself in this thread, all by yourself. Keep bwahhhhahahahaing while rubbing your greedy little hands together, for truly the good and righteous know you for the villain that you are, and this is why you have been shown the respect you deserve in this thread. You are being shown the respect all villains deserve.

To be fair mate... do you not realize how much fun it is to poke you and watch you scream?

I really don't understand why you're so agitated about lawyers though to be honest. There are bad people in every walk of life. There are bad defense lawyers just as there are bad doctors, just as there are bad cops. I'm sorry if you've been involved with the law in the past and had a crappy lawyer, but not all people can be judged by the actions of one or a small minority.

Beyond that, don't purport to quote me and then actually misquote me to make me seem stupid by repeating words in my sentences to give the appearance of my tautology. If you did not intend that, then that's fine, but I remain suspect.

You can read through my posts. I haven't posted American cases because I was not trained in America and therefore do not have a great deal of knowledge of the American legal system - there are enough similarities between it and the UK's system however to describe them broadly without needing to cite authority. Open any textbook on public law and I regret to say that you will find my statements corroborated in the opening chapters.

I have however cited the US Code, and have implored everyone on this thread (still reading, anyways) to read the site posted by a previous writer which does, however, cite American authority and statutes at length in dispensing of virtually all of the claims that have been made in this thread.

What it does not do is to describe the basic fundamentals of the law i.e. what the common-law actually is and does; what equity is; what commercial law is; what admiralty law is et c. I cannot describe them in detail here because I myself have spent the last three years learning what they all are. It goes without saying that the law is a complex beast. As I have suggested, if you still need further explanation, go off and do some proper legal research rather than merely having recourse to the pages which propogate the 'freeman' myth.

Scientia est potentia.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by duality90


The most important thing to take note from this post of yours is that still you have failed to refute a single claim I made regarding the law, and instead spend all your time deflecting.

It is not nearly enough to offer up a Latin phrase declaring that knowledge is power. Uttering the phrase is not as if you are uttering some mystical incantation that grants you the power of knowledge simply by uttering a chant. Nor should knowledge ever be confused with memorization. Your indoctrination is not tantamount to knowledge. You can preen and prance and proudly pat yourself for being "educated" all you want. Your ignorance of the law remains clear for all to see.

This is why I have suggested that a wise lawyer - and please take note that when I place the word wise next to the word lawyer I do not refer to that lawyer as the priest class lawyer - would want to urge people like you to shut up. It is precisely because of people like you, who have relegated the lawyer profession to being nothing more than court jesters, that wise lawyers must cringe whenever confronted with the nonsense like yours. You obviously think all you have to do in order to refute an argument is cut a fart, and then prance and preen like any court jester would as if you have some how soundly refuted an argument, while the stench of your flatulence clears out the room.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


For all the differences you and I have had, I would agree with the poster Charles and say that, particularly in my case, you will probably rebuff compliments, that was quite an interesting discourse.

Perhaps, unsurprisingly to you, I am not of the same theoretical opinion on 'inherent rights' and natural justice. Justice is itself a creation of man and is thus a subjectively held opinion. Natural justice is a prescribed ideal. Nature cares not what men do to each other, nor whether any injustice befalls an individual. The Universe is hostile and does not care what becomes of Man and his fellow beings. No man claims any right by pure virtue of his existence. We say that man has a right to life because we believe that man has a right to life, perhaps what is in our eyes the most fundamental right of all. It is not however a right inherently gained from, nor granted by, nature - I recognize that in this context, 'nature' is an unwieldy word, but I currently cannot find the correct term to describe what I am thinking of.

I see rights as being the embodiment of our common values. We put them in writing and hold them at the epicentre of our societies because they are the lowest common denominators of our societies. We are all different, but at the end of the day, we all agree that man should be given the right to life, amongst other things (freedom of speech et c.). It is morally repugnant when these rights are not respected, but the point remains that, by virtue of simply being a 'right', that right does not actually afford the individual any special protection in reality. A right is unfortunately worth only as much as the paper it is written on.

I confess, that is not the most compelling nor eloquent argument I have ever laid out. It is however three in the morning and my inner ear problems are flaring up, so do forgive me.

Rights are normative, but from a realist perspective, they are simply instruments which reflect societies values. The law is the embodiment of those values, but is not reflective of any 'inherent' right which has always existed.

On a separate note, I find it quite unfortunate that the right to life is not actually added to the US Bill of Rights. There is a sad irony in what is supposed to be the freest nation in the world readily granting it's government the power to commit homicide upon it's citizens, regardless of criminal culpability. Some crimes are heinous, I will admit, but the question of capital punishment remains a tricky one. Anyhow... I digress.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by duality90

 

The most important thing to take note from this post of yours is that still you have failed to refute a single claim I made regarding the law, and instead spend all your time deflecting.

It is not nearly enough to offer up a Latin phrase declaring that knowledge is power. Uttering the phrase is not as if you are uttering some mystical incantation that grants you the power of knowledge simply by uttering a chant. Nor should knowledge ever be confused with memorization. Your indoctrination is not tantamount to knowledge. You can preen and prance and proudly pat yourself for being "educated" all you want. Your ignorance of the law remains clear for all to see.

This is why I have suggested that a wise lawyer - and please take note that when I place the word wise next to the word lawyer I do not refer to that lawyer as the priest class lawyer - would want to urge people like you to shut up. It is precisely because of people like you, who have relegated the lawyer profession to being nothing more than court jesters, that wise lawyers must cringe whenever confronted with the nonsense like yours. You obviously think all you have to do in order to refute an argument is cut a fart, and then prance and preen like any court jester would as if you have some how soundly refuted an argument, while the stench of your flatulence clears out the room.

I can't be bothered with you anymore. I have offered general knowledge on the law and have referred to at least several statutes which refute the stupid and baseless claims you have made about corporate law, the UCC, and legal personality.

Go and read a textbook. Although I disagree with you here, it is not my job to educate you when you are plainly too lazy to go and search out evidence either for or against your own arguments.

Do you not see the irony in your constantly going 'oh priestly lawyer this, priestly lawyer that, where is your proof?' without having ever offered up any of your own?

reply to post by duality90

You really are an arrogant douche aren't you?

My oh my, how easily the court jester goes from declaring how much fun it is to poke fun at me to crying and pouting at the offense taken by my casual words. The meek may inherit the earth, but the weak are always the first to whine.

I have no formal training in America.

What does this have to do with anything I have said? I am speaking to universal law. It matters not where you "trained", if you actually need training to understand something as simple as the law, this speaks volumes about you.

As I've just said in my prior post, most of the things I've said are general principles of law - to describe the general principles of law would require several hundred, if not thousand, citations. It is impractical.

Horse puckey! It is you who is impractical, not the law.

Also, I might have accidentally included you in my reply on one poster's line of argument about the definition of what a 'bill' is. If that is the case, I apologize.

No apologies are necessary. l fully understood that your silly little rant on "Bills" was intended for hawkiye and not me, just as I fully understood that you had quite simply failed to refute a single argument I made.

If you wish to discover the meaning of 'bill', I can point you to "Commercial Law" by R.Goode - an English text nonetheless, but the definitive text on commercial law, wherein bills of lading/exchange/sale are described. They are basically the instruments that represent legal 'property' in goods. Do you really want me to cite cases that are difficult to find without the aid of a proper legal database like Lexis Nexis?

Stop deflecting! I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you know full well that I have never asked you to cite a single statute or case law, and you are merely yammering on in this way in hopes that people will come to believe that you are actually attempting to address the arguments I have made.

What you choose to do is continue to use the term "priest lawyer class"; you no longer come across so much as witty as you do a bit boring and incapable of using any other means of describing lawyers.

There is no more appropriate phrase than priest class lawyer set to describe you and your ilk. In the post above this one, you made this comment:

It goes without saying that the law is a complex beast.

This is the type of reification that comes from the priest class. Law is not complex, and it does not take a legal expert to know the law, and if it did, the legal principle of Ignorantia juris non excusat would have no meaning. Indeed, any statute written in such a complex way that the person of average intelligence cannot understand it, is a statute that has no jurisdiction over that person. There are rules to statutory construction, and one of those rules is that each and every word be given significance. When tautology is used to conflate a statute to the point it cannot be understood, it is nothing more than a bad Abbot and Costello routine and certainly has no legal authority.

Only the priest class lawyer set tries to sell law as being a "complex beast".

reply to post by duality90

I can't be bothered with you anymore. I have offered general knowledge on the law and have referred to at least several statutes which refute the stupid and baseless claims you have made about corporate law, the UCC, and legal personality.

I have not made any claims regarding the U.C.C., corporate law, or legal personalities you silly little court jester. This is how foolish you are, you seem to think I have made claims I have quite simply not made. I said what I said, and I did not say what I did not say.

Any person who hires you as their attorney is in for a world of pain, if these posts are an example of your legal acumen, and ability to comprehend.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by duality90

 

The most important thing to take note from this post of yours is that still you have failed to refute a single claim I made regarding the law, and instead spend all your time deflecting.

It is not nearly enough to offer up a Latin phrase declaring that knowledge is power. Uttering the phrase is not as if you are uttering some mystical incantation that grants you the power of knowledge simply by uttering a chant. Nor should knowledge ever be confused with memorization. Your indoctrination is not tantamount to knowledge. You can preen and prance and proudly pat yourself for being "educated" all you want. Your ignorance of the law remains clear for all to see.

This is why I have suggested that a wise lawyer - and please take note that when I place the word wise next to the word lawyer I do not refer to that lawyer as the priest class lawyer - would want to urge people like you to shut up. It is precisely because of people like you, who have relegated the lawyer profession to being nothing more than court jesters, that wise lawyers must cringe whenever confronted with the nonsense like yours. You obviously think all you have to do in order to refute an argument is cut a fart, and then prance and preen like any court jester would as if you have some how soundly refuted an argument, while the stench of your flatulence clears out the room.

Anyways. I haven't spent the last three years studying to be lectured by someone with no legal education like yourself. As I recall from another thread, you said you were down to your last few dollars and were without employment. You spend a tremendous amount of time personally attacking me, instead of ostensibly getting off the internet and seeking employment in "marxist" America (as you describe it - if it were Marxist you probably wouldn't be unemployed).

At the end of the day, I hate to break it to you, but I will be leaving this summer with a degree in law recognised by all relevant professional associations. I'm not going to spend my time on ATS imputing to you the knowledge I have learnt the past three years. Get off your high horse and do some of your own research.

Anyways, as you plainly won't shut your fat, self-indulgent cesspool of a mouth, here are a few bits and bobs taken from internet sources which lay waste to the claims of the freeman movement (i.e. BAR stands for British Accreditation Regency et c., names in caps do not mean individuals like me).

I will begin by stating that many of these lines of reasoning - which appear to be prima facie quite valid - are taken from the very informative site the poster Charles gave up. I have read several of the cases and the conclusions that the author draws/the ratio decidendi which he cites seem to be correct, or are at least not intentionally misleading. I have not exhausted and read every case in detail or in full because to do so would literally take several days - case reports can be extremely long.

"The UCC Argument is one of the most legally baseless I have ever encountered" says the author.

1. Jones v. City of Little Rock, 314 Ark. 383, 862 S.W.2d 273, 274 (1993)(In reference to traffic tickets, the court stated, "The Uniform Commercial Code does not apply to any of these offenses")
2. Barcroft v. State, 881 S.W.2d 838, 840 (Tex.App. 1994)("First, the UCC is not applicable to criminal proceedings; it applies to commercial transactions")
3. United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F.Supp. 224 (N.D.Tex. 1996)(read this if you remain unconvinced of the idiocy of the 'common law court' argument)
4. United States v. Andra, 923 F.Supp. 157 (D.Idaho 1996)("The complaint filed by the plaintiff is not a negotiable instrument and the Uniform Commercial Code is inapplicable")
5. Watts v. IRS, 925 F.Supp. 271, 276 (D.N.J. 1996)("The IRS's Notice of Intent to Levy is not a negotiable instrument")
6. United States v. Klimek, 952 F.Supp. 1100 (E.D.Pa. 1997)(returning lawsuit complaint marked "Refusal For Cause Without Dishonor UCC 3-501" and refusing other court pleadings "for fraud" based upon UCC argument got nowhere; also raised nom de guerre and flag issues)

Again, I am not particularly familiar with American citations and have not been able to investigate every case listed on the site, but alas, the author claims to be an Alabama attorney with admittance to be heard at both the US Appelate Circuit and Supreme Court level. He seems to know his stuff, from a cursory examination of the site.

The Uniform Commercial Code is a very long tome, which, as I have repeatedly said, is a harmonising code to facilitate interstate trade. The UCC regulates contracts, sales, bulk sales, documentary letters, assignments et c (at least insofar as I know). It has nothing to do with taxation, nor does it have anything to do the criminal law. It solely governs commercial transactions (big surprise with a name like 'uniform commercial code', right?).

For greater depth: home.hiwaay.net...

For a good laugh:
home.hiwaay.net...

As to the 'capitalised names' argument: various authorities
1. Boyce v. C.I.R., 72 T.C.M. ¶ 1996-439 ("an objection to the spelling of petitioners' names in capital letters because they are not 'fictitious entities'" was rejected)
2. United States v. Washington, 947 F.Supp. 87, 92 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)("Finally, the defendant contends that the Indictment must be dismissed because 'Kurt Washington,' spelled out in capital letters, is a fictitious name used by the Government to tax him improperly as a business, and that the correct spelling and presentation of his name is 'Kurt Washington.' This contention is baseless")
3. In re Gdowik, 228 B.R. 481, 482 (S.D.Fla. 1997)(claim that "the use of his name JOHN E GDOWIK is an 'illegal misnomer' and use of said name violates the right to his lawful status" was rejected)
4. Russell v. United States, 969 F.Supp. 24, 25 (W.D. Mich. 1997)("Petitioner * * * claims because his name is in all capital letters on the summons, he is not subject to the summons"; this argument held frivolous)
5. United States v. Lindbloom, 97-2 U.S.T.C. ¶ 50650 (W.D. Wash. 1997)("In this submission, Mr. Lindbloom states that he and his wife are not proper defendants to this action because their names are not spelled with all capital letters as indicated in the civil caption." The CAPS argument and the "refused for fraud" contention were rejected)
6. Rosenheck & Co., Inc. v. United States, 79 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2715 (N.D. Ok. 1997)("Kostich has made the disingenuous argument the IRS documents at issue here fail to properly identify him as the taxpayer. Defendant Kostich contends his ‘Christian name' is Walter Edward, Kostich, Junior and since the IRS documents do not contain his ‘Christian name,' he is not the person named in the Notice of Levy. The Court expressly finds Defendant WALTER EDWARD KOSTICH JR. is the person identified in the Notice of Levy, irrespective of the commas, capitalization of letters, or other alleged irregularities Kostich identifies as improper. Similarly, the Court's finding applies to the filed pleadings in this matter")
7. United States v. Frech, 149 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 1998)("Defendants' assertion that the capitalization of their names in court documents constitutes constructive fraud, thereby depriving the district court of jurisdiction and venue, is without any basis in law or fact").

For anyone with a sufficient lack of common sense to believe the BAR nonsense:

home.hiwaay.net...

I would honestly just implore that that site is consulted... the lawyer who has authored it has been quite skilled and has done a far more detailed job than I can do with the resources available to me.

I don't see how you could continue to believe the freeman nonsense in the face of what is ostensibly quite compelling evidence...

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by duality90

 

I can't be bothered with you anymore. I have offered general knowledge on the law and have referred to at least several statutes which refute the stupid and baseless claims you have made about corporate law, the UCC, and legal personality.

I have not made any claims regarding the U.C.C., corporate law, or legal personalities you silly little court jester. This is how foolish you are, you seem to think I have made claims I have quite simply not made. I said what I said, and I did not say what I did not say.

Any person who hires you as their attorney is in for a world of pain, if these posts are an example of your legal acumen, and ability to comprehend.

That's right... you were the one that balked on and on about statutes and the powers of legislatures, right?

My mistake.

It goes without saying I am paying decidedly less attention to an internet forum than I do to actual academic work...



Besides which, the point remains. It was not you perhaps, but someone else was going on and on about the UCC. This is an open forum after all, not a private message-board. People will read over it regardless.

You still do never cease to amaze me though. Someone else said the same thing on an internet forum recently when we had a political disagreement. "I pity the client...". And on what basis are you qualified to comment on my legal and critical acumen? Literally none, just like the other stooge who went back to his boring, dull life, fat wife, and 2.4 kids after I put him back in his place.

What makes you so special? You have no formal legal training nor any apparent knowledge of the law (eloquence, perhaps, but that does not equate to substantive knowledge). You are like the patient telling the doctor that he doesn't know medicine. It would be funny if it wasn't so incredibly pathetic.

Anyways. Good thing I already have a job lined up in the City of London Evidently, I meet corporate law standards, but apparently not those of a poster on ATS.

Can't win them all, I suppose

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by duality90

 

I can't be bothered with you anymore. I have offered general knowledge on the law and have referred to at least several statutes which refute the stupid and baseless claims you have made about corporate law, the UCC, and legal personality.

I have not made any claims regarding the U.C.C., corporate law, or legal personalities you silly little court jester. This is how foolish you are, you seem to think I have made claims I have quite simply not made. I said what I said, and I did not say what I did not say.

Any person who hires you as their attorney is in for a world of pain, if these posts are an example of your legal acumen, and ability to comprehend.

What do you do anyways that makes you so authoritative?

The problem with petty men like you is that you try and exploit minor and trifling mistakes, easily forgiven in the context (i.e. I confused you with another poster who adamantly made claims about the UCC), and try to use that as a means of discrediting the other party, despite the fact that that party is the one providing actual basis for their logic and line of reasoning whereas you just seem to repeatedly make claims about states being unable to legislate unless the people consent.

I have provided a relevant quote from the Texas Constitution somewhere in the prior pages of this thread, and nowhere does it say anything about consent needed for legislation to be both effective and lawful.

As yet you have produced no such evidence to justify your assertions about consent, and statutes being unlawful means of policy-making with no legal effect.

At last... I think that was you. For the sake of this argument (on an internet conspiracy forum) I am not going to bother trawling back through the pages, but I think you will recall what I am talking about anyways.

reply to post by duality90

Anyways. I haven't spent the last three years studying to be lectured by someone with no legal education like yourself.

Typical of the priest class lawyer set.

As I recall from another thread, you said you were down to your last few dollars and were without employment.

Yet just another example of your horrid recollection, and why that clearly makes you a dangerous lawyer. In that thread you are talking about I made perfectly clear that I am in business for myself, you dolt! I made this point, and the point that at that time I only had $24 dollars to my name because you were obviously assuming I was some fat cat rich guy, now you hope to use this clarification against me, and ironically a clarification I made in a thread where you assumed I hated the poor, but now look at you, readily dismissing me because I am poor. It is quite clear who you are, and the equivocations you rely upon.

You spend a tremendous amount of time personally attacking me, instead of ostensibly getting off the internet and seeking employment in "marxist" America (as you describe it - if it were Marxist you probably wouldn't be unemployed).

One need only follow the posts to see who attacked who first, and it certainly wasn't me. I entered this thread and replied to your lamentations that no one had reasonably offered any sound argument regarding statutes, and legislation, and all I did was make a sound argument in that regard, of which you ignored, and when hawkiye pointed this out, you attacked me, making unsupported claims.

Again, this is typical of the priest class lawyer set. They will gladly dismiss the rights of others to defend themselves, but think nothing of it when they feel compelled to defend their actions, and worse, think it prudent to misrepresent the truth.

At the end of the day, I hate to break it to you, but I will be leaving this summer with a degree in law recognised by all relevant professional associations.

Did somebody just break wind in this thread again? Oh look at that! The court jester prancing and preening because he is soon to have his court jester degree. Wow! A credentialed court jester? Gee, your parents must be really proud.

Anyways, as you plainly won't shut your fat, self-indulgent cesspool of a mouth, here are a few bits and bobs taken from internet sources which lay waste to the claims of the freeman movement (i.e. BAR stands for British Accreditation Regency et c., names in caps do not mean individuals like me).

Do you see how useless that degree of yours will be? Three years spent thus far, and still you think I have made "freeman movement" arguments. A *snip* with a degree is still a *snip*.

I don't see how you could continue to believe the freeman nonsense in the face of what is ostensibly quite compelling evidence...

You don't see at all, sport. This is why you keep insisting that I have made "freeman" arguments. Keep it up, sport. With each post you look dumber and dumber.

Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

reply to post by duality90


Congratulations, Duality90, on your graduation and employment. I assume (with absolutely no basis) that jurisprudence in England is more involved than in the US. I suppose I feel that way because of the centuries of legal history to be studied in order to get a thorough understanding, so I am a little in awe.

I've heard that London is no longer the tourist destination that it once was, but if I ever get there I'm sure I'd enjoy a conversation. All my best.

Oh, as a post script, there are conspiracy theories abounding focusing on the City and the Freemasons. When you decide to take over the world, give us a word.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You have a fascinating mind and I really hope to spend time with you on this site. I anticipate learning a lot. Thanks.

reply to post by duality90

Jean Paul Zodeaux repeated the same half-cocked arguments that everyone else has on this thread. He added nothing to the debate that could not be disproven with relative ease and quick perusal of some internet sites (consultation of textbooks wasn't even necessary).

As Jean Paul so succinctly pointed out if it was so easily disproven why is it you have NOT disproven a single element of it, but instead dismiss it as half cocked? Typical attorney, when no can defend, demur.

All legislatures pass bills. A 'bill' is just a term used to refer to legislation before it has been given legal force by consent/passing procedure of the legislature. That is what a bill is. A bill is not related in any way to the maritime-law meaning of 'bill'.

Take note here folks this is important for you to understand. This attorney is attempting to dismiss the fact that words have specific meaning and what most people do not understand is attorneys and the legal class have a completely different language using terms familiar to society but most often having a completely different meaning then the common cultural meaning society normally applies to the term.

So here he attempts to do what attorneys do in court to use the common cultural application of the word bill knowing full well it has a different meaning legally. This is why t they have their own legal dictionaries to redefine words in the legal class. Any time you are in court know this; any word used will be defined in legal terms not in common definitions. So it is wise to have a law dictionary handy. Also they revise law dictionaries from time to time to further hide their subterfuge behind the meanings of words so it is best to get an older version like Blacks Law 4th edition or earlier.

Lets look up the legal definition of the word bill in Blacks Law 4th deluxe edition:

There are several pages of definitions but lets look at a couple that apply to our current system of de facto commercial law/UCC practised in today courts. All courts are municipal corporations hence commercial entities. In other words the are a business and their goal is to make a profit. You can look them up on Dunn and Bradstreet.

In commercial law: a written statement of the terms of a contract or specifications of the items of a transaction or if a demand; also a general name for any items of indebtedness, weather receivable or payable.

In maritime law: the term is applied to contracts of various sorts, but chiefly to bills of lading and to bills of adventure.

What's happening in today's courts is a commercial transaction you are considered chattel and the statute is the contract or bill of lading you are to perform under and the charge is to compensate for non performance of the contract. These courts have no authority under the law namely title 3 of the federal constitution and the corresponding section of their state constitution hence they are unlawful courts and no man or women is obligated to obey them. The people only do so out of ignorance, coercion, force, and fear. These thugs are nothing more then organised crime syndicates operating under color of law.

Does the attorney disagree that the State and federal constitutions are the law that govern the legislature, judicial and Executive? And that those branches are strictly limited to the specific powers defined therein?

And also, I honestly don't know where you get the idea that a corporate entity cannot bring legal action against individuals. That is just plainly and simply not true. Just as an individual can raise action against a corporate entity (which is legally a person - it has legal personality), so can a corporation (with legal personality) raise action against an individual.

Corporations are fictional entities. Fiction means something that does not exist. How can something that does not exist bring an action? They are façades for real men and women to bring unlawful actions against other real men and women but not be liable for their actions period. That's what corporations do; they deflect liability to some fictional entity that does not exist in real life.! They should not be allowed to exist, all men and women are personally responsible for all their actions whether they form a company or not. Legally being a person means an artificial person and is still a fiction, not a flesh and blood natural man or woman. Here again folks the word person means something different in the legal class then it does to the men and women. So when ever a judge calls you a person object and say I am a natural man or woman. Fictions do not exist that is why they are called fictions.

Equity has nothing to do with commerce whatsoever. Equity is a distinct body of rules which was invented to circumvent the harshness of the common-law rules (see: Law of Judicature Act 1873 (UK) if you want to see a fairly basic explanation of the differences between what used to be ourts of common-law and courts of equity - I should stress that 'common law' court is a term entirely different form what is described in the OP, and refers to procedure and the writs that could be brought rather than any rights accorded to the individual). Equity is largely limited (at least in the UK) to trusts, wills, and property law, although other areas of the law have borrowed some of its concepts, such as estoppel.

Talk about half cocked, Equity law is derived from the court of Chancery and implies fairness, at least originally it did. It deals in business not criminal cases however most cases are tried as civil even when it is criminal because again you are being treated as chattel cna charged for non performance on a contract. So to say business is not in commerce is absurd.

I'm not entirely certain what relevance the term 'charged' has if someone is suing you for breach of contract. I haven't heard that term used before but that might be the norm in America, I'm not certain. Unless of course you are referring 'charge' in the sense of a right granted over secured property (real or personal).

You've never heard the phrase "charged" with a crime, or "brought up on charges". or have the charges read in court?

Blacks law 4th deluxe:

Charges: the expenses which have been incurred, or disbursements made, in connection with a contract, suit, or business transaction.

I'm sorry but you consistently misunderstand what the UCC and Equity are. Furthermore, how can you possible claim that the UCC is not recognised in the United States? it is THE definitive harmonising commercial code which makes inter-state commerce feasible and easy. You are literally just telling non-truths.

I did not say they were not recognized at all. They are only recognized by unlawful de facto courts that have become the norm due to ignorance and sedition. They are not recognized as law applying to men and women on the land by the constitutions limiting the judiciary. I am literally telling the truth unlike you.

Apparently you are in the UK is that correct? If so that would explain some of your ignorance but not all. You do not seem to understand that the federal and state constitutions strictly limit the legislature, judiciary, and executive to those powers specifically defined therein and they cannot legislate or adjudicate outside those limits. Doing so is treading on peoples rights.

Also why are you arguing American law being from the UK? That does not denote good mental judgement now does it? Still the attorney class are the leeches and sores on society. If ever the SHTF I hope you have some place to retreat to because attorneys will not fair well in civil unrest as some folks seek to settle scores.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by duality90

 

Congratulations, Duality90, on your graduation and employment. I assume (with absolutely no basis) that jurisprudence in England is more involved than in the US. I suppose I feel that way because of the centuries of legal history to be studied in order to get a thorough understanding, so I am a little in awe.

I've heard that London is no longer the tourist destination that it once was, but if I ever get there I'm sure I'd enjoy a conversation. All my best.

Oh, as a post script, there are conspiracy theories abounding focusing on the City and the Freemasons. When you decide to take over the world, give us a word.

haha. Thank you very much. I almost hate myself for boasting like that (in fact, I do hate myself for boasting like that) but what else are you to do when you are being made the object of attack by a man determined to humiliate you in front of others (admittedly, this is just an online forum, but it remains nonetheless offensive).

They are all interesting conspiracy theories about the City, but again, I think alot of it stems from the fact that the City of London is managed/overseen on a domestic basis by a body called the 'Corporation of London'. As I have tried to explain in this thread, the mere use of the word 'corporation' is no cause for alarm, but alas, some will always see a conspiracy when they are looking for one.

I would not be surprised however if there were shady dealings in the City financial sector. There is ALOT of money that passes through the financial district, and obviously not all of it is going to be strictly legal. What is that saying about the NWO? Washington is the Legion, Rome is the Temple, and London is the Bank?

Interesting stories. Again, no substantive evidence. But I suppose that's what makes a conspiracy so intriguing.

What has annoyed me about this thread is the fact that it has been derailed by those pushing an agenda who refuse to observe facts presented to them which are contrary to their arguments. I enjoy ATS, but by God I wish there more reasonable posters like you... Whatever happened to inquiry? The pursuit and ascertainment of the truth? Unfortunately it seems in many threads to have died.

Thank you for your compliments though.

reply to post by daddio

I personally think this explains it quite well.......

British Accredited Registry (BAR)? During the middle 1600's, the Crown of England established a formal registry in London where barristers were ordered by the Crown to be accredited. The establishment of this first International Bar Association allowed barrister-lawyers from all nations to be formally recognized and accredited by the only recognized accreditation society. From this, the acronym BAR was established denoting (informally) the British Accredited Registry, whose members became a powerful and integral force within the International Bar Association (IBA). Although this has been denied repeatedly as to its existence, the acronym BAR stood for the British barrister-lawyers who were members of the larger IBA. When America was still a chartered group of British colonies under patent - established in what was formally named the British Crown territory of New England - the first British Accredited Registry (BAR) was established in Boston during 1761 to attempt to allow only accredited barrister-lawyers access to the British courts of New England. This was the first attempt to control who could represent defendants in the court at or within the bar in America. Today, each corporate STATE in America has it's own BAR Association, i.e. The Florida Bar or the California Bar, that licenses government officer attorneys, NOT lawyers. In reality, the U.S. courts only allow their officer attorneys to freely enter within the bar while prohibiting those learned of the law - lawyers - to do so. They prevent advocates, lawyers, counselors, barristers and solicitors from entering through the outer bar. Only licensed BAR Attorneys are permitted to freely enter within the bar separating the people from the bench because all BAR Attorneys are officers of the court itself. Does that tell you anything? Here's where the whole word game gets really tricky. In each State, every licensed BAR Attorney calls himself an Attorney at Law. Look at the definitions above and see for yourself that an Attorney at Law is nothing more than an attorney - one who transfers allegiance and property to the ruling land owner. Another name game they use is "of counsel," which means absolutely nothing more than an offer of advice. Surely, the mechanic down the street can do that! Advice is one thing; lawful representation is another. A BAR licensed Attorney is not an advocate, so how can he do anything other than what his real purpose is? He can't plead on your behalf because that would be a conflict of interest. He can't represent the crown (ruling government) as an official officer at the same time he is allegedly representing a defendant. His sworn duty as a BAR Attorney is to transfer your ownership, rights, titles, and allegiance to the land owner. When you hire a BAR Attorney to represent you in their courts, you have hired an officer of that court whose sole purpose and occupation is to transfer what you have to the creator and authority of that court. A more appropriate phrase would be legal plunder.

source

Any Judge, Government Agent, or Bureaucrat Who Had Sworn to Uphold the Constitution for the United States Who is Violating that Oath is Guilty of Treason.
The Penalty is still DEATH BY HANGING.

reply to post by duality90

What do you do anyways that makes you so authoritative?

Do you mean which church was I ordained in?

The problem with petty men like you is that you try and exploit minor and trifling mistakes, easily forgiven in the context (i.e. I confused you with another poster who adamantly made claims about the UCC), and try to use that as a means of discrediting the other party, despite the fact that that party is the one providing actual basis for their logic and line of reasoning whereas you just seem to repeatedly make claims about states being unable to legislate unless the people consent.

Right. If in a court of law, if you began attacking one witness for the things another witness said, the judge and/or jury would be petty and trifling to fail to see how reasonable you really are. Keep telling yourself that, sport, because there sure won't be many others willing to tell you this.

I have provided a relevant quote from the Texas Constitution somewhere in the prior pages of this thread, and nowhere does it say anything about consent needed for legislation to be both effective and lawful.

First, let's be clear here. I am not the member who claimed that a statute requires consent from the people in order to be lawful and effective. Once again, you are confusing me with someone else, and this fact does not make you look good.

Secondly, you are so lazy that you cannot even be bothered to go back through the pages of this thread to find the reference to the Texas Constitution you speak of.

Thirdly, don't bother. Allow me to cite certain Sections of Article 1 from the Texas Constitution:

Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

Read it and weep, sport.

Sec. 3. EQUAL RIGHTS. All free men, when they form a social compact, have equal rights, and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments, or privileges, but in consideration of public services.

Oh look at that! Here the Texas Constitution is agreeing with me that all law is simple, true, universal and absolute, and not at all arbitrary and capricious. Or, perhaps since I have not been properly ordained by the lawyer church you believe I have misunderstood this section.

As yet you have produced no such evidence to justify your assertions about consent, and statutes being unlawful means of policy-making with no legal effect.

How many times do I have to tell you? I have not made any assertions about consent, you are confusing me with someone else.

As to statutes being unlawful, the evidence of this readily apparent in judicial review. If statutes had the force of law simply by virtue of being a statute, judges would not have the authority to strike down a statute as being unlawful. Any first year law student should know this.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

You have a fascinating mind and I really hope to spend time with you on this site. I anticipate learning a lot. Thanks.

You are very kind. We all, even the court jesters, have something to teach. We can all learn from each other.

reply to post by duality90

You still do never cease to amaze me though. Someone else said the same thing on an internet forum recently when we had a political disagreement. "I pity the client...". And on what basis are you qualified to comment on my legal and critical acumen? Literally none, just like the other stooge who went back to his boring, dull life, fat wife, and 2.4 kids after I put him back in his place.

Uh-huh. You would have to speak of some imaginary internet forum where you "put (someone) in his place", because you sure as hell have not done that here.

You have made a complete fool of yourself in this thread, and seem to believe that your constant confusion in this thread has no bearing on your critical thinking skill, which are clearly lacking.