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

page: 3
151
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   
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




posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
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



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Great thread, S&F.. I thought there was only Civil Law and Maritime Admiralty Law.. Got to insert some J. Maxwell research here..

Evidently, the government creates a second "you" when you're born, with your name in CAPITAL LETTERS. Think about it, any time you get a utility or personal bill, ticket, lawsuit document, fine, or then your Driver's License, Social Security Card, Insurance Card, etc...--> your name is always in capital letters. Your "self" is now a business.

The Judge sits on a Bench. In latin, Bench means Bank.
Maritime Admiralty Law = Banking Law.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   
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



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   

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


Well said, sir...



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Trying to practice law for yourself as sovereign freeman is a very tricky, very dangerous thing. It goes well beyond book knowledge even, you really have to be in a totally different frame of mind. It is practically impossible to untrain yourself from a lifetime of indoctrination. One slip up, and they will come down on you with the full weight of the entire system without mercy in a hellstorm the likes of which you have never heard of. I know smart, educated folks, even lawyers, who have tried to follow the rabbit so to speak, and still lost in the end. You start down this path you will find yourself perpetually at war with the American legal system and all of its power.

But here is some background information for those who might be interested in how we came to this...


U.S. Federal Authority is Martial Law


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.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
A win for the good guys here. But it is also a good example of how you have to be on your toes, quick on your feet, and how one man cannot do it alone....




posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Apparently maritime admiralty law is presently known as Oleron law. That's a new one for me.

If anyone hasn't seen it yet, this is the video of the activists seizing the court here in Britain on monday.




posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
I believe you are onto something deeper here. Keep it up and great job!



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by greenovni
 


ALL courts ARE courts of COMMERCE ONLY. THERE IS O ENFORCEMENT CLAUSE, therefore there is no way ANY statute or code can be enforced on a living breathing soul, YOU!!

Again, ALL police officers are nothing more than COPRORATE SECURITY GUARDS!! The Yellow Fringe on the flag is of Admiralty, the Kings law. To remove your corporate self, you simply state that you are the beneficiary of the trust and that you have no name, as a name would imply corporate title!! It IS that simple.

Let no one fool you. I went to court last month and stated just such thing, the judge moved for an "Omnibus Hearing" to see if my rights were violated, I laughed, I could have stopped it by objecting and rejecting his offer of contract. I told him I was NOT the name he was seeking to steal from, I told him that that name was a "corporate fiction", he asked if my parents were corporate fictions, I said YES they were!!!! He gave me a funny look but I knew that HE knew what was going on.

If ANY of you EVER get arrested...NEVER give a name when asked, simply state.. "How can you arrest me if you do not know who I am?" They repeatedly ASK you your name to keep you duped into "believing" THEY have the power and authority. WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is all a fraud and it is falling apart rapidly. It need not be anarchy, just RESPONSIBILITY!!!

Common Law DOES still exist, not in practice or form but in SUBSTANCE, our sovereign and natural born INALIENABLE rights are secured by Common Law and THAT can never disappear no matter what they say!!



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by StigShen
 

It is all right here;

www.barefootsworld.net...



"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.


Too many times people get scared, FEAR NOT, for he who stands and claims his right will never fail.

YOU are the beneficiary of the trust, appoint the judge as trustee and demand he do your bidding, demand he dismiss the case, erase the record and compensate you from the trust in the amount you chose.

OR

Simply ask if we are on the record, then state "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." Watch how fast the judge changes his tune!!

Judges CAN NOT practice "law" from the bench, they can state nothing of significance and can not recite law. THAT is a federal crime.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 


If a judge tell you to remove your hat and you do, if he tell you to step forward, and you do, you have just relinquished your sovereignty and contracted to recognize his authority, One simple slip up like that my friend, and you are done for. They will make a rude example of you so that others dare not tread close to where you have just strayed.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
Amazing how ignorant of the laws the courts and cops actually are.

Unfortunately, they are even more ignorant of the Constitution.

The responses you got are what you'd expect from someone caught out in their ignorance, a defensive display to challenge yor right to ask a question they can't answer due to that ignorance. They got defensive because the question strikes at the heart of their legitimacy which they themselves doubt, or they would respond differently.

Strikes me that it's covered by "due process" clause...if you can't get a straight answer from the the people controlling the process about the nature of the process, then you can't effectively mount a defense, and thus are deprived of it.


That is because law students only study previous case's(Judicial precedent) and not the law itself.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by StigShen
 


This is where most get it wrong, even IF you step forward, as I have done, you DO NOT reliquish your Sovereignty, it is refered to as boarding the ship, but if you give no name and claim to be the beneficiary of the trust, they have nothing. I have done it.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Can I try these things in the US? I noticed that most of this stuff is done in the UK?



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   

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.


May I ask where you got your law degree? Or are you an armchair lawyer? Sounds like the OP doesn' t know what he's doing when he goes into a court in the US asking if it is Common Law, Admirality, or a Court of Contract. I see someone mad that they're being acted against by the State. Common Law, then, doesn't mean you can play around in the Courtroom. Leave the law and its interpretation to the lawyers.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
"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.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   

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.





new topics
top topics
 
151
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum