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.

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by rstregooski

---

another point is the "dock"
you have to dock a maritime vessel into the local juristiction
you are a boat in a dock (waiting dock) awaiting entry into the court jurisdiction (port)
this is the mecanisim used to strip you of your standing and rights

xploder

In this piece I will be providing documentation which shows that the United States of America’s Constitution, as prescribed by the nation’s founders, no longer has direct authority, and that the nation operates under a declared state of martial law. While it is true that the Constitution is referenced, and still alive in spirit to some extent, it is also true that it no longer binds effective governance in legitimacy. Sovereignty has been stripped from the people.

"Pursuant to the "Law of the Flag", a military flag does result in jurisdictional implication when flown. The Plaintiff cites the following: "Under what is called international law, the law of the flag, a shipowner who sends his vessel into a foreign port gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the shipmaster that he intends the law of the flag to regulate those contracts with the shipmaster that he either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all." - Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 ILL. 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 AM.

COMMON LAW
That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. The system of jurisprudence that originated in England and which was latter adopted in the U.S. that is based on precedent instead of statutory laws.

sta·re de·ci·sis   /ˈstɛəri dɪˈsaɪsɪs/ Show Spelled
[stair-ee di-sahy-sis] Show IPA

–noun Law .
the doctrine that rules or principles of law on which a court rested a previous decision are authoritative in all future cases in which the facts are substantially the same.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1855–60; < Latin stāre dēcīsīs to stand by things (that have been) settled

Originally posted by daddio

Originally posted by Wrong
I hate to tell you but the US doesn't recognize Common Law. Common Law is a bunch of Old English laws on which our system was based upon. You are really misguided. You have COMMON PLEASE, SMALL CLAIMS, and other various courts in the US.

You have the right screen name...
www.lectlaw.com...

COMMON LAW
That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. The system of jurisprudence that originated in England and which was latter adopted in the U.S. that is based on precedent instead of statutory laws.

Ever hear of American Jurisprudence? It is a huge volume. Ever hear of "Stare Decisis",

sta·re de·ci·sis   /ˈstɛəri dɪˈsaɪsɪs/ Show Spelled
[stair-ee di-sahy-sis] Show IPA

–noun Law .
the doctrine that rules or principles of law on which a court rested a previous decision are authoritative in all future cases in which the facts are substantially the same.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1855–60; < Latin stāre dēcīsīs to stand by things (that have been) settled

So you see, Common Law IS alive and well, you must know how to invoke it and make it stick.