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

reply to post by spikey


Where you get the idea from that a business-entity does not have legal personality, I do not know.

I have not taken courses in company law, so only know the vague basics, but any incorporated business has legal personality separate from it's directors/employees and is able to sue in it's own name. Your 'consent' is not required to be sued by a corporate entity.

reply to post by MoosKept240


People are given court dates which are to be kept to as a matter of administration. If people turned up whenever they pleased nothing would ever get done or sorted out. Be mindful that the court system is involved in alot more work than prosecuting you for your petty tickets. By virtue of your actions being illegal, the state is bound to 'prosecute' you (although in a traffic case people seldom ever take it to trial). Don't # on people trying to get their jobs done and sort through the vast quantity of cases which need to be heard.

Originally posted by Namaste1001
From my understanding a judge has to gain jurisdiction over you to be able to enforce a statute. As many "freemen" are now finding out by pushing the boundaries.

The following video, in two parts is very revealing. The court tries and fails several times to get jurisdiction. I believe this is the same guy that was at the forefront of the court sezuire yesterday where a judge was 'civilly arrested'.

The following article is also of great interest as it shows yet someone else who manages to get the judge to admit that the defendant is not the person (legal fiction).

The Cat Is Out Of The Bag

Judge: Can we first find out who is in the court... is MR ROGER HAYES in the court?
Me: Sir, I am third party representative for MR ROGER HAYES.
Judge: Are you MR ROGER HAYES?
Me: No sir, I am the third party representative for MR ROGER HAYES... you may address me as Roger.
Judge: I will not address you as Roger, I will call you MR HAYES
Me: Sir, I am not MR HAYES, the court is required to address me as I request and I request that you address me as Roger. (NOTE – court protocol dictates that a defendant or respondent can be addressed the way they choose – the Judge then referred to me as ‘the gentleman’ but avoided referring to meas MR HAYES).
Judge: If you are not MR ROGER HAYES then I will take note that MR ROGER HAYES is not represented in court.
Me: In that case sir, you will have to also note that the council is not represented in court. (NOTE. This would mean that the case would have to be dismissed, finding for the defendant, because the plaintiff had not appeared)
Judge: I can see that that the council has representation in the court.
Me: Then you will have to acknowledge that MR ROGER HAYES has representation in the court. We are all equal in the eyes of the law... if council has third party representation then so does MR ROGER HAYES. The council is a corporation and so is MR ROGER HAYES.
Judge: MR ROGER HAYES is not a corporation.
Me: Yes it is.
Judge: No it isn’t, it is a PERSON.
Me: A PERSON is a corporation.
Judge No it isn’t.
Me: Define person.
Judge: I don’t have to.
Me: Then let me do it for you sir. A PERSON is a corporation (NOTE: This is defined in a law dictionary) Sir, are you familiar with the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666?
Judge: I am familiar with many laws.
Me: Sir, I asked if you were familiar with the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666, if you are not Sir, then with respect you are not competent to judge in this matter and that gives rise to a claim of denial of due process.
Judge: Let’s hear from the council.
Me: Sir we can only move on to the council’s presentation when the court has confirmed that MR ROGER HAYES is represented in court.
Judge: Fine.

edit on 8-3-2011 by Namaste1001 because: spelling

They were thrown out of the Court not because they had 'rattled' the judge but because they were being extremely rude and argumentative towards a lay-person. A magistrate is not required to have any legal training - hence why 'bigger' cases are usually immediately passed on to the Crown court.

reply to post by Maxmars

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

Which immediately brings to mind the freemen refusal to not "understand" the police and courts etc.

I was initially very skeptical about this whole freeman thing, but the fact that the system (for want of a better word) operates almost identically both sides of the Atlantic irrespective of vast differences in statutes strikes me as rather too much of a coincidence.

Originally posted by XPLodER
one point to note is the big three
three totally different languages all for one purpose
to confuse you

1.english is the commonly spoken language of your country (we use this to understand each other)
the average person can understand english and would protect their rights and point of veiw
when i ask if you understand you will answer yes if you do and no if you dont.


2.legaleze is a registered language of the law society (why do they need their own language?)
why does the average person think when they hear legaleze think they can understand?
why does understand mean stand under in legaleze? and why are you being spoken to in a forien language in court?
its because you speek english that you think you know what understand means and you will usually say one word

YES

3.ucc or universal comercial code, has a combination of english, legaleze and ucc code and depending on the venue can depend on what the interpretation of
each of the words in the order they were written in OR
each of the words in the language they were written OR
weather or not the words are in capatil or lower case letters

you have to ask the question
if this is to be a fair process why are there so many variables to consider?
answer: if you were told in plain english "whats happining"
you would object to "whats happening" and demand a fair trial or court with jury members involved
and it to be held in english only.

a good anallogy is
i set up a society (allows me to own and design a language)
i make that language "sound similar" to what you speek
i make the words mean the "exact" opposite to what you interperate them to mean

example
any contract between two parties in ucc law is instantly in my favour as you only "think" you are hearing english
so you have unwitingly entered into a contract with me and given me the rights to rewrite the contract as i see fit

if this system was fair
there would be no "english sounding" forign languages in court
what you here is what you got=fair

this is for educational purposes only and not intended as legal advice
PLEASE be warned
the system does not take kindly to people challenging its legitimacy and anyone who tries is harshly punished and made an example of to "scare" any others from challenging their power.

this is not a game if you do not want to provoke a monster
DONT POKE THE MONSTER WITH A STICK

the reason you only hear about the people who fail to get the process correct
is that way no one will try

truth is if enough people knew the truth
the public would demand a "common law" setting for their courts
that way they would not be subject to a contract negotiation in a forign language
where as soon as they stood up and said a word
(any word) they would not be subordinate to a contract they dont understand

an anology would be
on a ship the captain is judge jury and exocutioner
you have no rights of common law
what he says goes

so why do courts have docks?
why do courts have a bench?
why do courts act like you are on a boat and the judge is captain?
because under maritime law they are all powerful and you lack "standing"
on this boat (you are crew) and have to take orders from the captain (judge)
or the captain (judge) can do what he likes

most of the freeman stuff can be understood from the angle of standing
because without it you are just crew to be flogged

this anollogy is for educational purposes
for legal matters please consult an "lawer" in your state or country
obligatory warning

it takes time and skill to negotiate the waters in a legal case when the boat your on is on the land

courts get their power from you
you have to be there but you dont have to stand or sit or answer questions (you WILL get it wrong )or understand
whats going on
i plan on "not understanding" every word spoken untill a complete written reference is supplyed of each word used and in what context and from which language and from whos "standing"

in a jury trial it is the jourors who weild the power (captain) and have higher standing than the judge.
what ever they decide is binding (like a captain)

in a contract negotiation "UCC" all parties are equal in standing and a judge (has to follow the letter of the law of the code and canot deviate from the code

there is great risk and reward with the process

i personally think education of people on the mass level instead of each person having to poke the monster

its broke educate and replace with common law
or the rich never face justice
and the poor never see justice

be careful what you wish for

xp

Nearly everything you have just written is a load of complete bull#. Before you go slagging off lawyers, do some god-damned reading and research on the subject.

Unbelievable.

Originally posted by Rastus3663
reply to post by duality90

 

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

Q: Why don't sharks attack lawyers?
A: Professional courtesy.

In all seriousness though, the 'legal 'demographic is just like any other. Just like you have some doctors who go to third-world nations and offer free surgery and care for those who could not otherwise get it, so you have some who abuse their 'respected' position and perform botched procedures which they are neither competent nor trained to do.

Just as you have lawyers who love to litigate and make as much out of any given case as possible, so you also have those (such as human rights lawyers, et c) who keep liberty's flame burning, despite the best attempts of government to smother it. Don't tar all lawyers with the same brush.

Originally posted by Namaste1001

Originally posted by Wrong

Originally posted by daddio

Originally posted by Wrong
"THE COURT WILL NOW TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE JUDGES OATH OF OFFICE SO THAT WE KNOW HE IS ACTING AS JUDGE AND NOT AS BANKER."

-That'll get you thrown out in no time.

Thrown out is a dismissed case. Not giving your name will get you thrown out too, case dismissed. Works every time because they don't want others to know and learn. Should have seen the look on the peoples faces when I spoke, priceless.

Thrown out and in contempt if you keep it up. Don't answer the judge, contempt of court. Too many people try and find a conspiracy where there is none.

Give up Wrong. There are plenty of documented cases to support what is being said in this thread.

The only thing you are discrediting (which I believe is your intention) is yourself.

If you believe that you can evade the law by simply refusing to give your name (regardless of whatever 'wins' you've had) you are sorely, sorely wrong. If this was the case, why would the legislature have not rectified this immediately?

This entire argument is farcical and anyone who believes that they can beat 'the system' by simply refusing to give their name or acknowledge their presence is both immature in refusing to own up to their own malfeasance, or stupid. Or both.

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
Common law is very real...at least here in the UK.
If you live with a partner for a certain amount of time....you become their common law husband/wife.
If common law were not in existence today...why did they celebrate the 800 year anniversary of the Magna Carta??

www.bbc.co.uk...

When you are tried for murder you are tried under common law

topics.law.cornell.edu...

Its real...its just not talked about very often for the pure fact it was created to protect the people from the state.
Unless you are a judge its very unlikely you will ever get to the bottom of the subject. Only certain people are given the privilege of becoming a judge or QC...doesnt matter how well you did at university, or what type of law degree you received...if your not part of their circle of friends/family you wont become a judge. Why?? Because they dont want the peasants knowing the truth about law. Even the wording in law is different to that used in normal life.
Blacks Law dictionaries are used to define wording in statutes etc. If a statute was created in 1998 for example you would need a copy of blacks laws 5th edition....if a statute was created in 2000 you would need a blacks law 9th edition. The definition of the words change, so the relevant dictionary has to be used to decipher the true meaning of the word.

Im no expert on the matter but thats what ive learnt over time.

EDIT: A good place to start learning law is here :

www.law.cornell.edu...

edit on 9-3-2011 by loves a conspiricy because: (no reason given)

You are quite right in saying you are no expert on the matter.

Your observations on judicial elevation are also the most pathetic conspiracy theory I have ever heard. You do not go to the bench or take silk because you are a 'selected' person... the Bar is a meritocracy, and those at it's highest levels are both extremely capable advocates and extremely intelligent people.

The common-law is the law of this country which evolved from the start of legal memory i.e. 1066, and was the patchwork of laws which were applied in various parts of the country. Because there was formerly no official legal system, the King would travel around the country hearing disputes. These rulings came to be applied elsewhere, such that rules which were applicable in one part of the country became applicable in other parts as well hence the term 'common law'.

The common law is a patchwork of decided cases, many of which involve statutory interpretation. Statutes supplement the common law. For instance, electronic crime (i.e. computer hacking and electronic fraud) are not crimes at common-law for obvious reasons but are quite obviously criminal acts in the sense that Parliament has declared such activities to be illegal and punishable by fine or custodial sentence.

Why people on this thread keep on going 'well its common law so the court cant touch me' I don't know. None of the arguments are cogent nor do they have any legal validity.

reply to post by Rastus3663


No, i'm not. I may not be 100% correct, and there probably are inaccuracies in my posts, but that's a long way from being wrong.

The thrust of the quote you posted, as i see it at any rate, is basically saying that 'case law' is an interpretation of composited results of cases tried or heard at courts representing the three main branches of applicable law, Common law, Civil law and Admiralty/Maritime (aka corporate law), for the purposes of showing president. That's it.

A court that has no ruling in a given area or case of law, will obviously not have a pool of cases, or may have similar cases although not in sufficient quantity, that could be drawn upon to enable an interpretation to be made in respect of 'case law'..of similar cases. This is not to say that the court in question is being penalised or overlooked for any other reason, than not having a sufficient number of cases to draw upon to make a reasonable interpretation of the law.

Common law based court cases are no different to Admiralty courts in the respect that if you commit a crime, and are subject to the jurisdiction of the court, and are found guilty of the crime to which you are accused, you will be punished in accordance with the prescribed punishments metered out for similar crimes.

Common law is a just and honourable system of law..it is *NOT* however to be confused with a get out jail free card, because it isn't. If you commit a *genuine* crime, including sexual crimes, violence, murder, assault and so on, all the way through to non violent crimes such as fraud, criminal damage/stealing to/of sovereign's property, and are proven guilty, you must expect to be lumbered with an appropriate penalty for your actions.

The difference is Common Law is the law of fairness, of rational sanity, of common sense, of genuinely protecting and assisting the law abiding sovereign public, while punishing those that are not. It's about justice.

Admiralty law is...well, it's none of those things. It's often grossly unfair to the point of being deliberately obtuse and deceiving (Legalese for one example), very frequently has *no* human victim - no injured sovereign, is based on aiding and abetting corporate interests, not the sovereign public's interest. It is not about justice.

Yes, i am in Jolly England, but i'm approaching this topic from an International, humanist stand point, rather than a Nationalistic one. Common Law is equally applicable to the public in US, as much as it is in England.

Whether some legal fiction is called an Act or a Statute, it really doesn't matter..they all mean the same thing essentially and serve the same purposes and masters. They both are equally *unlawful* creations, despite being legal. The acts or statutes are envisioned and established by Parliament or Congress, it doesn't matter what it's called, the result is the same.

Men and Women around the world, obviously more so of late, just really want the simple things..they want to be happy, to have a happy family, to live in a world that has a system of law not geared from the ground up to serve the interests of the few, at the (great expense) of the few. They want to be able to live their own lives, unhindered and unmolested. Make their own choices and expect to be treated as lawful equals and with respect regarding those choices. They want to be protected, *not* suffocated. They want genuine and fair justice, not corporate enforcers making it up as they go along.

Glad you made it back OK. Genuinely. Sorry you had to go too though.

Folks don't want to be scammed. It's gone on for too long, and a lot

reply to post by duality90

A magistrate is not required to have any legal training - hence why 'bigger' cases are usually immediately passed on to the Crown court.

No, but the court clerk is required to have the appropriate training, and also is required to advise the magistrate on legal matters, hence why a magistrate can issue a custodial term of up to six months.

reply to post by spikey


What do you mean a statute is 'unlawful'?

It is passed on the consent of the Crown, which as you know is (at least, theoretically) legally infallible; Parliament, as it came to be, was allowed to pass Acts, but only with the authority and consent of the Crown. I don't understand how you can claim that an Act of parliament is not a 'lawful' act. It is applicable to whatever terrestrial region the statute applies to, and all people therein, unless exempted by virtue of a provision contained within that statute.

I don't understand why you insist that the common-law is anything more than a body of decided cases and rules. It does not afford anyone any particular right which cannot be repealed (although in certain statutes common law defenses/rights are specifically protected) by an Act of Parliament.

Furthermore - I don't understand what relevance the clerk has to the proceedings in these cases as the clerk does not preside over the cases.

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by Rastus3663

 

The thrust of the quote you posted, as i see it at any rate, is basically saying that 'case law' is an interpretation of composited results of cases tried or heard at courts representing the three main branches of applicable law, Common law, Civil law and Admiralty/Maritime (aka corporate law), for the purposes of showing president. That's it.

Also, as regards the Admiralty courts - they deal with torts and maritime contracts. Not criminal cases?

Nope but OP you gave me a wicked idea....

When you hear of this lawsuit ... you ladies who where rape victims can thank this OP...

On behalf of all the rape victims in military... You have their thanks... you pointed out a way to screw em over.... and the DOD cant fight back....



Me hats off to ya lad, may the luck of the Irish shine on your case for ya...


I never considered the other options provided for under the other type of courts........

b-e-a utiful

Originally posted by duality90
reply to post by spikey

 

What do you mean a statute is 'unlawful'?

It is passed on the consent of the Crown, which as you know is (at least, theoretically) legally infallible; Parliament, as it came to be, was allowed to pass Acts, but only with the authority and consent of the Crown. I don't understand how you can claim that an Act of parliament is not a 'lawful' act. It is applicable to whatever terrestrial region the statute applies to, and all people therein, unless exempted by virtue of a provision contained within that statute.

I don't understand why you insist that the common-law is anything more than a body of decided cases and rules. It does not afford anyone any particular right which cannot be repealed (although in certain statutes common law defenses/rights are specifically protected) by an Act of Parliament.

Furthermore - I don't understand what relevance the clerk has to the proceedings in these cases as the clerk does not preside over the cases.

Where does the crown get its 'authority' from? The people.
The Clerk is actually very important in these commercial de facto courts. He deals with the accounts. Its all credit/debt charges in these courts. Forget about what they said you 'did'.

Originally posted by duality90

Originally posted by spikey

Originally posted by Rastus3663
reply to post by daddio

 

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

Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am the OP and to tell you the truth, I am in this WHOLE mess because of 2 lawyers who just stood there, got steam rolled by the Florida Department of Revenue council and then had the audacity of charging me $2,500 a piece for a 5 minute hearing.

Originally posted by ripcontrol
Nope but OP you gave me a wicked idea....

When you hear of this lawsuit ... you ladies who where rape victims can thank this OP...

On behalf of all the rape victims in military... You have their thanks... you pointed out a way to screw em over.... and the DOD cant fight back....

Me hats off to ya lad, may the luck of the Irish shine on your case for ya...


I never considered the other options provided for under the other type of courts........

b-e-a utiful

I have absolutely no clue what you meant by that. What do rape victims (which are victims of a real crime) have to do with my OP?

Originally posted by lawlb0t

Originally posted by duality90
reply to post by spikey

 

What do you mean a statute is 'unlawful'?

It is passed on the consent of the Crown, which as you know is (at least, theoretically) legally infallible; Parliament, as it came to be, was allowed to pass Acts, but only with the authority and consent of the Crown. I don't understand how you can claim that an Act of parliament is not a 'lawful' act. It is applicable to whatever terrestrial region the statute applies to, and all people therein, unless exempted by virtue of a provision contained within that statute.

I don't understand why you insist that the common-law is anything more than a body of decided cases and rules. It does not afford anyone any particular right which cannot be repealed (although in certain statutes common law defenses/rights are specifically protected) by an Act of Parliament.

Furthermore - I don't understand what relevance the clerk has to the proceedings in these cases as the clerk does not preside over the cases.

Where does the crown get its 'authority' from? The people.
The Clerk is actually very important in these commercial de facto courts. He deals with the accounts. Its all credit/debt charges in these courts. Forget about what they said you 'did'.

Legally speaking the Crown does not get it's authority from the people. It rules by the mandate of nobody.

It is the supreme source of all power in the United Kingdom. Although the realities of socio-political situations may dictate otherwise (i.e. if the Crown requisitioned all land in the United Kingdom there would obviously be massive social upheaval), but in a legal sense, consent of the people has absolutely nothing to do with it. You forget that for a while at least we lived under absolute monarchs. The system is very much the same, just that the actions of the rulers have changed.

Originally posted by greenovni

Originally posted by duality90

Originally posted by spikey

Originally posted by Rastus3663
reply to post by daddio

 

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

Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am the OP and to tell you the truth, I am in this WHOLE mess because of 2 lawyers who just stood there, got steam rolled by the Florida Department of Revenue council and then had the audacity of charging me $2,500 a piece for a 5 minute hearing.

Unfortunately, it would seem that there are indeed very #ty lawyers out there. Lawyers can be a help, or they can be perhaps the biggest hindrance ever.

You could of course always sue them in negligence, but I imagine that at this point in time you are probably quite sick of legal proceedings.

Best of luck fighting whatever taxes the State is levying upon you (presumably, incorrectly or unjustly). Did the lawyers you hired let you have a free consult/give you a short rundown of their previous trial history (which you could corroborate)? As I said, there are alot of very mediocre lawyers out there who will represent themselves as very competent and efficient professionals. Caveat emptor.

Alas though, if the State has you by the balls, there is little that the lawyer can do but mitigate the loss. The law can be unflinchingly and unrepentantly harsh

A couple of small things: I noticed someone saying that legaleze is a different language from English and foor the most part I'd agree with that. Even the definitions of basic words like "person" change from law (or statute or act) to law. Many laws have a list of definitions as one of the first items with the definitions that will be used in that law. And the interpretation of that word changes as well through court decisions. So, yeah, I can see the different language thing.

What I don't see is how some posters can take one or two sentences of this very different language out of context and attempt to provide a correct interpretation of the meaning. More times than I can remember I've seen posts here which make me mutter "But, that's not what it means." Yes there are some statements in the law which are clear and can be read and understood by everyone. BUT, I'm not sure you know which ones they are.

(Just as an aside, I've never participated in a "freeman" type case. My guess is the judge would either find the person in contempt or just go ahead and conduct the hearing or trial, removing the person if he became unruly.)

You know, of course, that defense attorneys try every legal means to clear their clients of charges. The successful one earn a reputation and a very good living. (Think Johnny Cochran) Some of you are very knowledgable about the "freeman" theory. Why don't you go to your local defense attorneys and tell them that you have a way to make them famous and rich and very successful. Offer to tell them for just 5% of their fees. I would be delighted to hear how that works out. On the other hand, you wouldn't have to tell me, I'd see it in all the papers.

If you want to cut out the middleman, go to law school yourself, then use your techniques in the real world. If you're right, you'll be the famous and wealthy one.

reply to post by charles1952


Why would a lawyer, defense or otherwise want to bring to light that the whole system that they make their living on is bull#? Of course they want to keep earning rediculous amounts of money by keeping that system going... It is like asking a bank owner to help end the fiat money fraud system....