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

page: 2
151
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by greenovni
 

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


Give some cases or some links so I can gain yet more knowledge!




posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by greenovni
 


More power to your elbow mate!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did you mention a statute? An act?

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

Lawful = Common law

Legal = Corporate law

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

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

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

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




Nice Post! I surely will do some more research.

One thing about the birth certificate, my BC has been voided by the state, as well as 100s of thousands of my countrymen As seen here: & yes, we are born with American citizenship

Since the MR. is the birth certificate, does this mean that in fact the state has killed MR. Whatever?

And if so, how would I point that out in court?

Now, my case is a civil matter brought by the State of Florida on BEHALF of someone else - I went to the court to see which courtroom it would be at and lo and behold - no court room


The case will be held by a "hearing officer" (not a real judge) - in his little office @ the courthouse. This man does not even wear a black robe!

Little office, 3 chairs, a desk and the hearing officer's chair.
edit on 8-3-2011 by greenovni because: Forgot to add information



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by greenovni

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


Towards that end I have no knowledge or experience... I would suppose so, but States and corporations have so many avenues via the Uniform Commercial Code (especially with the tacit consent of the court), I would need to do some serious research before commenting.

It's easy for us, the bystanders to opine and comment, but we can't speak with any measurable expertise or authority, so remember... when you enter the lion's den, you do so alone. You have my goodwill.... it's all I can offer.

.... here's a little moral dilemma to occupy your thoughts..... If they were to concede to you on the condition that you not speak of the case, and how you 'won it' ... would you accept the contract of silence? Don't answer that (NEVER answer that)... just think about it.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars

Originally posted by greenovni

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


Towards that end I have no knowledge or experience... I would suppose so, but States and corporations have so many avenues via the Uniform Commercial Code (especially with the tacit consent of the court), I would need to do some serious research before commenting.

It's easy for us, the bystanders to opine and comment, but we can't speak with any measurable expertise or authority, so remember... when you enter the lion's den, you do so alone. You have my goodwill.... it's all I can offer.

.... here's a little moral dilemma to occupy your thoughts..... If they were to concede to you on the condition that you not speak of the case, and how you 'won it' ... would you accept the contract of silence? Don't answer that (NEVER answer that)... just think about it.


Hey Maxmars - I am putting my motions to dismiss as we speak and believe me, I have been to our huge law library @ the law college doing research and one of the persons who work there (a lawyer with a phd) has been kind of pointing towards some paths because I had a hypothetical discussion with her and 3 other law students that got kind of heated where I was able to "beat" their arguments with the constitution and some other laws.

Their own laws I might add


That being said, she has been really cool in looking over my paperwork as I write it - she too is very interested to see how I fare in this quest.

The motions and everything else I do myself, and like an old school teacher she marks somethings out and tells me "do more research" when I need to add somethings while never telling me exactly what to add since she is "an officer of the court"

tacit consent of the court is now another term that I must research - Thanks my friend!

About your last question - Would I sell out? That is a moral dilema that would be answered when the time comes considering all the facts


Not to derail but I received a PM that I got 500 points from "Applause" by an admin. What in the world does that mean and what do I do with said points?



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I noticed in the OP video that when the judge admitted common law jurisdiction that he was flying a flag with a gold tassel. There is a juxtaposition if ever there was one.

Flying a gold tassel indicates that the just and enforceable laws of the land (common law) have been replaced by Martial, Admiralty or basically, Military Law.

I heard that the reason the courts and other official buildings in the US and Canada fly the flag of a captured country has something to do with the fact that US and Canada went broke in the 30s. Britain bailed them out and we have been tax slaves to them ever since. Each of our actual birth certificates (not the copy you have or the short form one you can request from the government) is in a bank in the UK and represents collateral/the amount of taxes we will be expected to make in our life time.

Anyway, the bad news for us is that the court is now an accounting system for the UK. Its job is to collect the fees which pays back the original bail out. The judges and the lawyers are sworn to the Queen so good luck getting them to help you enter common law.

Members of the Freeman movement believe that they can separate themselves from this corporate law system through a process that affirms their native right to the original law of the land. They use notary publics to officiate the process because they are willing to do it (not sworn to the Queen).



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by greenovni
 

regarding your points. i got the same in another thread. you might get lucky and have them added!
2nd
f



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by greenovni
One thing about the birth certificate, my BC has been voided by the state, as well as 100s of thousands of my countrymen As seen here: & yes, we are born with American citizenship


From that link...


"Money buys everything," she says. "Anyone will do anything for money."


Without money... We would not do anything lest our heart was in it.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Ooops.
edit on 3/8/2011 by Amaterasu because: Double Post



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
This is absolutely fascinating. Thanks for posting and good luck. I'm going to do some research on this freeman movement. Sounds like my kinda people...



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
This is really a great thread. I have been dealing with my own court bs. The system is flawed. I had to go to jail for 90 days because of traffic tickets. I do not believe in any way shape or form. Anyone should have to go to jail if they did not hurt someone, steal, or did not cause serious issues. Not to mention the amount of money I had to pay, just so I could go to jail. I was shocked, I told the judge. "Really, I have to pay you to go to jail?" He said yes, if I didn't have it paid I would be held in contempt and be sentenced to more time, and I would have to pay for that too. And even after all that. I am still not done and paying out the a. All because I missed a court date and they suspended my license without my knowledge and got pulled over 3 times in 2 days with a suspended license. And no I didn't get pulled over for anything reasonable. One was for 1 of my 2 tag lights being out, and one for (my tag looked like is was going to fall off). And my personal favorite was "we have had reports of stolen chevrolet's in the area. (Oh ya. how many 1991 giant lifted suburbans are around?)

I applaud you for all your research and time. I chose a public defender. got screwed. I believe these courts, are a big reason for many to live in poverty. I think more needs to be done, because these are the things that affect us "average joes" and it can completely destroy someone life. And for what? I am sure with your case, you probably didn't hurt anyone or anything, yet for some reason, they are soooo important if you miss or are late, they will toss you right in jail. Or at least charge you so much money you might as well went to jail anyway.

Eventually when I get enough posts, I wanted to start a thread about my issues, because that short paragraph is only a small portion of the entire deal that has engulfed my life for 7 years now.

Keep researching and posting please. I would like to know how everything pans out for you.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
You want the truth? The court is only a revenue collection system. and will claim authority and priority in any manner available to them and not defendable by you. The officers of the court run it for the benefit of the officers of the court. Ask any attorney, their self appreciated mandate is only to provide process for a price, at retail rates, until somebody goes too broke to appeal. Justice is incidental and not a priority. Ask anyone who's gone pro per what they get for not hiring an attorney. Didja know that mostly attorneys bother voting for judgeships, mainly depending on what their predisposition to rule in their favor of generating billable hours? Ask me how I know? NOT gonna tell ya.
edit on 8-3-2011 by FriedrichNeecher because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by greenovni
 


this video and website is good for INFORMATION
this is not intended as legal advice
this is for educational purposes only
REMEMBER
this is a confusing process for a reason
be very careful of what you say and do


please visit the web site for interesting freeman vids info ect
this is not something undertaken lightly
xploder



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by greenovni
 


im curious to know what the nature of the dispute is...did you default on a loan, leave your lawn unmowed, not pay a bill?




posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I was actually 'informed' but not really by a lawyer on this whole idea. But after researching for more hours than I would have liked to admit, I found a few very pertinent facts about this idea.

Note: I'm from Canada but we are still based on Common Law.

1. About ten years ago the law society was having trouble streamlining cases, so they made all new statutes and shifted which courts heard which cases.

It was a major change. Essentially turning the court system in to a highly effective business model.

Now, there are plenty of letters and official memos that you can find on this matter. Canada has a statute for damn near everything and they toss more and more in every year. In my search I could not find anything to help recognize good from bad information.

Within the Freeman movement, some claim free tickets, free houses, free bills, etc.. But others end up in jail. Separating good info from bad is a daunting task.

From my understanding, Law is real because it is made to be real through the courts. At the end of the day it is just a bunch of words on paper. But, you have millions of intelligent people who live, breath and rely on it. They have found ways to shape it to their benefit.

For someone to find a way to nullify all that, is to go up against an impossible force. My only question is, is it really worth the time? What would happen if there was widespread knowledge that could void the majority of laws in place?
edit on 8-3-2011 by boncho because: oops



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
The two things that prove this 'freeman' concept is a load of rubbish are, firstly, the lack of a follow-up to these videos and, secondly, the lack of entrepreneurs who could easily become a billionaire through marketing this supposed idea.


On the first point, if you see all of the videos doing the rounds on this subject, then you see how they always leave the courtroom with a 'cliffhanger' situation, which the ''freemen'' usually claim as a victory.

In reality, the court has been adjourned due to the obstinacy of the defendant, and the fine is imposed after a court session at a later date ( when the defendant is not present ).


The second point is pretty obvious: in the UK examples that I've seen, the main ''crime'' that the defendant is challenging, is the non-payment of Council Tax.

Considering that there are probably 20 million Council Tax payers in Britain, then wouldn't somebody create a service that provided advice, information, training courses and seminars on how to not pay this tax ?

If I had access to genuine knowledge that would beat this system, then I would become a billionaire in a few years.

The fact that one of the leading British 'luminaries' in this field is a conman, tells us pretty much all that we need to know about this idea...



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedrichNeecher
 






Ask any attorney, their self appreciated mandate is only to provide process for a price, at retail rates, until somebody goes too broke to appeal.


I read something from the Canadian Upper Law Society that states this, not word for word, but pretty much the same thing. It also says that Lawyers should never take advice from clients that tell them what to do, because they are not qualified to offer advice.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by greenovni
 

It's the other way around, really. There are No Longer actual common law courts: they ARE all Admiralty/Maritime courts, due to the military standard they falsely claim being the flag.
(And why was the unhelpful lady thinking that statutes are statues?)
In the video, the cue-card reading judge refers to "our system of common law justice," not that the COURTS there are common law courts... It's a cleverly worded bit of PR.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
If you want to do research check out these web sites.Since this topic always get a debate going I will not say anything about whether I have used this and it works or that it does not work. Just go to the sites, read and decide for yourselves if you want to take the steps needed to fully become free. Just remember one thing if you do decide to go this route. If you mess up on one tiny thing when arguing your case, no matter how much you think you have prepared for it they GOT YA! So be warned you better bring your lunch and not slip up AT ALL or they got ya by the BALLS!!

worldfreemansociety.org...

www.thinkfreeforums.org...

www.thinkfree.ca...

www.winstonshroutsolutionsincommerce.com...



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



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
After you read the sites from my post you may find it takes way more then you would be willing to do to use the freeman route. In that case you may want to look at this web site which many people who are in the freeman movement think is really the only method to use to get out of the nightmare in the end. Check it out!



loveforlife.com.au...



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
I offer this post not to the OP, but to those who point out their opinions and understanding of what seems to something we could call "The 'Common Law' relevancy myth."

I have heard of the Freeman movement, and frequently seen both assertions of the for and against variety.

Be they what they may, it is an irrelevancy to me.

There is a growing tendency of the government of the people, to codify and regulate all manner of living. These 'statutes,' 'laws,' or 'policies.' are my concern; not the ideological leanings of organizations and communities based on old documents with a sprinkling of ancient wisdom mixed-in.

I am certain there is much peril within the notion of bucking the establishment and challenging it's legitimacy to rule various aspects of our lives... but that peril is legal... and establishment, even if held in abeyance, never loses.

We have infractions and lapses that are kin to human nature, and those of the community who fall into that category are made to pay restitution to the sate for the transgression. But is restitution not to be 'in like kind'? In what way is the balance achieved? Certainly fining someone for toxic dumping does not remove the toxins. Certainly, fining someone for missing a court date is an inconvenience for the court, but when they inconvenience you, do they pay restitution? Do they not proceed to the next case? Do they not honor an attorneys request for latitude to suffer their workload? But you, a layperson, cannot. You are expected to address the court, in person, and be ready to effect "justice." When you are found 'not guilty' does the court somehow restore your time and grief?

Our problems with the legal system is the loss of identity for the participants. While the BAR members have a role from which to disconnect, the accused or aggrieved do not. The law is being particularized into matrix of protocols that do not hold to the value of human dignity.

The particulars of the varying 'categories' of court and the manner in which the BAR monopoly has structured the process are all machinations of people who are neither accused nor accuser. The adversarial process was perverted to become less than it was meant to be... for the sake of expedience.

That may be a bit over the top for some of you, but there you have it.
edit on 8-3-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
151
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join