Video: Judge Admits That The Court Is A Common Law Court

Video: Judge Admits That The Court Is A Common Law Court - Are Freemen Correct?, page 28

privacy

Pages: << 25 26 27 28 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 150 times

reply posted on 29-4-2011 @ 10:40 PM by maluminse

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Wrong

Here's a legal thing. Bring forth the evidence. I want cited case law. You know what case law is right? Not some youtube video or something from a third party website aka abovetopsecret or alternatenewsfirst.com actual case law.

You can't have it both ways. You are increasingly demonstrating your ignorance of the law. A case thrown out of court has no "case law" to support it. Either you are a disinfo agent who believes people are too stupid to see through your stupidity, or you are that stupid. Either way, it doesn't take a "legal expert" to know that someone entering into a court seeking a dismissal and either gets that dismissal or is "thrown out of court", will not have any "case law" to back it up. The "case" never went to trial, hence, no case law.

No youre the one showing your ignorance. In EVERY case someone gets 'thrown out of court'. Either you lose and your case or you win. So in every case someones case is thrown out.

Some cases are 'thrown out' by verdict after trial.

Most cases are 'thrown out' prior to trial.

Guess what? You can appeal being thrown out. When you are thrown out of court you can appeal it. When the appellate court decides your case where you 'thrown out of court' you have...(ready?)

A COMMON LAW CASE. Also known as stare decisis. Stare decisis is latin for Its been decided. A common law system of jurisprudence.

This whole thread is the wackiest thread on ATS. That says a lot. I dont blame everyone its for a lack of knowing the terms. Someone gets an idea they understand something they dont and run with it. They're smooth enough to convince a few ofthers of their wrong position and the whole village goes to pot.

reply posted on 29-4-2011 @ 10:43 PM by maluminse

Originally posted by greenovni

Originally posted by czerro
Yes I misspelled ONE word at 6 am, when you misspelled the same word about 50 times across many posts...and it is the crux of your argument. This suggests that MINE was a typo, and yours suggests a serious misunderstanding of all factors involved. There is a simple solution to your situation as you eventually described it in your response. Sometimes liberal justices will decide that the acting father in the formative years is still responsible for the support of their non-fraternal children simply because they willingly took on the role when they believed they were the father AND/OR that their continuance in that role is in the benefit of the child. Why don't you simply get a dna test and put the whole thing to rest? The only reason you wouldn't go this route, In good Faith, is that you Are the father and it IS your kid. That's the only reason you would leap on some weird freeman BS about how the judiciary system has no right to prosecute you. You are grasping at straws and still continue to make yourself look worse to a court of law. Pray that your prosecutor is unaware of your proclivity for abovetopsecret.

I wonder what your problem is.

# 1 English is my second language, thank you for correcting my spelling!

# 2 This happened from a 1 night stand, never was there for said child, have never even seen said child's school report card, never attended any birthdays & I have seen said child 3 - 4 times in my life if that so your argument of "willingly taking the role of a fater" is null.

A home DNA test was taken, came back as NOT THE FATHER, biologically impossible. Asked the court to ORDER a DNA test to legally establish paternity, denied by the judge because the time period to contest paternity has long passed.

So yes, I HAVE IN GOOD FAITH been asking these bastards to ORDER the legal DNA test, been denied which calls for another way to handle the fraud committed by both the courts and the custodial mother.

You are really not gonna like my answer.

You CAN be made to pay child support EVEN if you can show conclusively you are NOT the father.

I agree its really messed up. Its unjust and in my opinion unconstitutional but the courts main interest is the child, not the possible father.

reply posted on 3-6-2011 @ 03:44 AM by MarcusMark

Where did this post go? _javascript:icon('

')

Video: Judge Admits That The Court Is A Common Law Court - Are ...
Mar 10, 2011 ... 'British Accreditation Registry'? Are you honestly insane? You are seeing acronyms where none exist. The term 'bar' comes from the fact that ...

A search of ATS had the above post but it is not in the thread.

When I asked a lawyer about BAR and the American BAR, he was reluctant to share. Later in the conversation, and I'll quote him here,"That deed was never transferred" I had asked him why we were under England's rule.

How did a state become a state? The organic document called the Northwest ordinance, and in that document it states contract will be the rule of law.

This is my opinion;
The real terrorist are people who allow this land to be governed by BAR member morons.

AS for common law, when one is brought before a grand jury that is common law.
A grand jury should be a thousand jurist, very few powers that be (morons) would spend the cash to bribe the thousand jurist. As it is now, we the people lost this great land to the BAR.

reply posted on 18-6-2011 @ 04:51 PM by LegalTender

reply to post by greenovni

Black's Law Dictionary 8th

court of law. 1. Broadly, any judicial tribunal that administers the laws of a state or nation. 2.
A court that proceeds according to the course of the common law, and that is governed by its rules
and principles. Cf. court of equity.

court of equity.A court that (1) has jurisdiction in equity, (2) administers and decides
controversies in accordance with the rules, principles, and precedents of equity, and (3) follows
the forms and procedures of chancery. Cf. court of law. [Cases: Courts 42(7).]

OBLIGOR
obligor (ob-l>-gororob-l>-gor).1. One who has undertaken an obligation;
a promisor or debtor. UCC § 9-102(a)(59). 2. Under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act,
any person who owes a duty of support. 3.Archaic. One who obliges another to do something;
_______________________________________________________
U.C.C.

§ 3-305. DEFENSES AND CLAIMS IN RECOUPMENT.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the right to enforce the obligation of a party to pay an instrument is subject to the following:

(1) a defense of the obligor based on (i) infancy of the obligor to the extent it is a defense to a simple contract, (ii) duress, lack of legal capacity, or illegality of the transaction which, under other law, nullifies the obligation of the obligor, (iii) fraud that induced the obligor to sign the instrument with neither knowledge nor reasonable opportunity to learn of its character or its essential terms, or (iv) discharge of the obligor in insolvency proceedings;

(2) a defense of the obligor stated in another section of this Article or a defense of the obligor that would be available if the person entitled to enforce the instrument were enforcing a right to payment under a simple contract; and

(3) a claim in recoupment of the obligor against the original payee of the instrument if the claim arose from the transaction that gave rise to the instrument; but the claim of the obligor may be asserted against a transferee of the instrument only to reduce the amount owing on the instrument at the time the action is brought.

(b) The right of a holder in due course to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the instrument is subject to defenses of the obligor stated in subsection (a)(1), but is not subject to defenses of the obligor stated in subsection (a)(2) or claims in recoupment stated in subsection (a)(3) against a person other than the holder.

(c) Except as stated in subsection (d), in an action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the instrument, the obligor may not assert against the person entitled to enforce the instrument a defense, claim in recoupment, or claim to the instrument (Section 3-306) of another person, but the other person's claim to the instrument may be asserted by the obligor if the other person is joined in the action and personally asserts the claim against the person entitled to enforce the instrument. An obligor is not obliged to pay the instrument if the person seeking enforcement of the instrument does not have rights of a holder in due course and the obligor proves that the instrument is a lost or stolen instrument.

(d) In an action to enforce the obligation of an accommodation party to pay an instrument, the accommodation party may assert against the person entitled to enforce the instrument any defense or claim in recoupment under subsection (a) that the accommodated party could assert against the person entitled to enforce the instrument, except the defenses of discharge in insolvency proceedings, infancy, and lack of legal capacity.

(e) In a consumer transaction, if law other than this article requires that an instrument include a statement to the effect that the rights of a holder or transferee are subject to a claim or defense that the issuer could assert against the original payee, and the instrument does not include such a statement: (1) the instrument has the same effect as if the instrument included such a statement; (2) the issuer may assert against the holder or transferee all claims and defenses that would have been available if the instrument included such a statement; and (3) the extent to which claims may be asserted against the holder or transferee is determined as if the instrument included such a statement.

(f) This section is subject to law other than this article that establishes a different rule for consumer transactions.
_______________________________________________________
14th Amendment

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
_______________________________________________________
The United States Code

Title 15 United States Code § 645 (a): " Whoever makes any statement knowing it to be false, for the
purpose of obtaining money, property, or anything of value, shall be punished by a fine of not more than
$5,000 under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both."

Title 18 United States Code § 241: " Whoever, under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or
custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any state territory or district, to the deprivations of any rights,
privileges or immunities secured or protected by the United States Constitution or laws of the United
States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both.

Title 18 United States Code § 241: " Whoever in disguise enters the premises of another, with the
intent to prevent or hinder a citizen's free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to a
citizen by the United States Constitution, or because of his having exercised same, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if such acts include
kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap [via false arrest or imprisonment] shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both.

Title 42 United States Code § 1983 (21) " Whoever, under color of law of any statute, ordinance,
regulation or custom or usage, of any state or territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to
be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other party within the jurisdiction thereof to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the United States Constitution and laws,
shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity or other proper proceeding in
redress."

reply posted on 19-6-2011 @ 03:51 PM by LegalTender

there was no "mutual consideration" in the signing of the "certificate/contract". for a contract to be valid, there must be an equal "give and take"... However a "social contract" was made prior to the signing of the birth "certificate", which was a social contract of a "security" interest, but the social contract could be seen as fraudulent, due to the fact that the the individual who signed, was unaware of the additional "clause" of the contract which were party to, not to mention that the original agreement has been changed since the signing, bringing in a need for renewal..It would be like making an agreement on one thing, having it change without your knowledge, and still being responsible for the newly added clause..I'm still learning, so if anyone has any input, I'd like to hear it.

reply posted on 19-6-2011 @ 09:43 PM by LegalTender