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

page: 4
151
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Anything you sign is a contract. Do not sign anything if you do you are giving tacit permission to do anything they want and ignore any defense you might give. PM me your email and I will send you a strategy to use in the court room to corner the judge to admitting no jurisdiction or dismissing the case.




posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by MoosKept240
Can I try these things in the US? I noticed that most of this stuff is done in the UK?


Absolutely, I am in Minnesota!! ProtoplasmicTraveler is from Florida.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   

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.


Did you manage to get anyone to record it? I would love to have seen that.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   

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.


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.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
I watched a guy try some of these stunts. They kept calling him back to court every month, and made him the last on the docket so no one else was in the court. They finally had him involuntarily committed.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
If you look at the Moors vs. New Jersey videos on youtube, all I see is someone wearing a moor cap trying to avoid the laws. In fact, the misuse the laws like the one trying to claim that the person he brought with him was able to represent him even though he was not on the bar in Illonios. I also have found a lot of belligerent people, even interrupting and talking over the judge. You can try these tricks...at your own peril.

You look even better when you cross examine a judge LOL.
edit on 8-3-2011 by Wrong because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 11:01 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.
reply to post by dainoyfb
 


Interesting, but when I was on a jury pool a couple of years back in Pennsylvania, none of the court rooms had flags with tassels. They were all plain flags. This is in Lancaster County courthouse, can't vouch for any others in PA.

Maybe PA didn't get the memo




posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Namaste1001
 


My brother was there and my fiancee. they both thought it was funny.

More people should learn the truth.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   

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.


You can not be held in contempt as it is not a lawful "Court of Law", it is a "Fiction of Law", look that up. Roman charades. It's all BS and I will be keeping it up and educating others to do the same.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   

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.


Namaste said that he had multiple cases of the stunts and schemes talked about in here worked. I want case law. You cannot claim something without having evidence. Thrown out cases have a transcript, there is a record that they happened and were dismissed. There would be a record of what happened. They keep records of everything you know? So if it is any step in the American Judicial System, there will be a record of what happened. They even video tape as well.

docket.vandaliacourt.com...

Here it says officer dismissed the case. If you want the transcript, you contact the clerk of courts.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 


How come it isn't a "court of law"? Is my "municipal court" not a court of law? I am just trying to understand more. Thanks.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddio

You can not be held in contempt as it is not a lawful "Court of Law", it is a "Fiction of Law", look that up. Roman charades. It's all BS and I will be keeping it up and educating others to do the same.


"FICTION OF LAW
The assumption that a certain thing is true, and which gives to a person or thing a quality which is not natural to it, and consequently establishes, a certain disposition, which, without the fiction, would be repugnant to reason and to truth. It is an order of things which does not exist, but which the law prescribes or authorizes. It differs from presumption because it establishes as true, something which is false; whereas presumption supplies the proof of something true.

The law never feigns what is impossible. Fiction is like art; it imitates nature, but never disfigures it. It aids truth, but it ought never to destroy it. It may well suppose that what was possible, but which does not exist; but it will never feign that what was impossible actually is.

Fictions were invented by the Roman praetors who, not possessing the power to abrogate the law, were nevertheless willing to derogate from it under the pretence of doing equity. Fiction is the resource of weakness which, in order to obtain its object, assumes as a fact what is known to be contrary to truth: when the legislator desires to accomplish his object, he need not feign, he commands. Fictions of law owe their origin to the legislative usurpations of the bench. "

-from lectlaw

What does this have to do with a court having Jurdisdiction? A Federal Court has juridiction of federal cases, specifically if it is a tax court, it deals with taxes. If it is a Common Please Court, it has a specific jurisdiction as specified by the law that set it up. You would not be in a court if it didn't have jurisdiction. I think someones mad they got called to court and lost.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MoosKept240
reply to post by daddio
 


How come it isn't a "court of law"? Is my "municipal court" not a court of law? I am just trying to understand more. Thanks.


"municipal court n. a lower court which usually tries criminal misdemeanors and civil lawsuits involving lesser amounts of money than superior, district or county courts. The authority, importance and geographical area covered differ from state to state. In California, municipal courts have county-wide jurisdiction, conduct preliminary hearings of felonies, and try cases up to $25,000, while in many states they only handle cases arising out of violations of city ordinances, traffic and/or small claims. "

From freedictionary.com

It is set up by law and has the Jurisdiction as specified in such.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   
If you know more than the Courts, how is it you do not know that an "Enacting Clause" can simply be identifying the Legislature who passed the Law?

You do know the Legislature has the Authority, under predefined circumstances, to change the Law or even Amend a Constitution? Whatever they determine the Law is, the Law is.

If the State stepped in on behalf of an injured Party it usually means there is a pattern of whatever behavior caused the Suit. Since you are withholding any real information, you're just trying to get people to agree with you and not trying to find the truth. I actually had a talk with an AG about a problem I had with a bad company and he told me, before the State can represent you we have to have enough similar complaints to show a pattern, then we can represent you.

I had the misfortune of meeting some of the Freemen in Montana. All of them were also in the Aryan Nation as well. They hammered me with video's and books I watched, read and discounted as crap. They would not stop bothering me. I was glad when I finished my job and went back home. I'm to polite for my own good at times.

They bragged to me openly about their criminal activities which included things like fake Land Deeds, tricking Banks into Loans with lies and not only not making any payments, but refusing to leave. Before it was over a couple of them I met went to prison. They even printed fake money and made themselves welcome to other peoples land.

The most disgusting bunch of people I've ever met in fact. Two of them came in one day bragging to me about all the Elk they Poach. They told me they take the heads to Denver once a year to an auction and sell them to rich folk to pretend they got them hunting. Showed me a Trophy Rack in their truck and it was not season yet. They apparently would wait until the season opened, get a tag and then use that tag so they could transport and sell what they poached. If what they shot was not Trophy class they left it lay.

It's hard for me to describe adequately just how sleazy these clowns were. I saw two of them on CNN a couple of years later on a story about their arrest.

Your real problem is the Legislatures of both the Federal Government and the State Governments have the power to author Laws. From that moment forward it is the Law. Period end of subject. The Freemen crap will get you locked up and it IS NOT TRUE, that is why you only see criminals attempting to use it.

You can't get out of a crime, Civil or Criminal by using the insane defense of Common or Admiralty Law. It's terrible naive to even try and of course they get angry at you. You walk in and start spouting nonsense from a criminal organization as facts and tell them how to do their jobs, how would you react?

Good luck, you have already lost. You can't fight the system through legal nonsense spewed by criminal organizations but you can learn to use it and live under it. Civil means you did harm to somebody, somehow. You can't be proud of it or you would give details. If it was nothing, you would be open about it.

Most people go through there whole lives, never being arrested or bothered. Those who have constant run-in's with the Law are always guilty in my experience. Even me when I was young and dumb. I grew up and a Mentor taught me to use the system as intended and it works.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrong
 



A docket or transcript indicating a dismissal is not case law. Either you are backpedaling, or you are admitting that you misspoke when demanding "case law" as evidence of a dismissal. Which is it?



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Wrong
 



A docket or transcript indicating a dismissal is not case law. Either you are backpedaling, or you are admitting that you misspoke when demanding "case law" as evidence of a dismissal. Which is it?


Do you have proof that the "Freeman" nonsense works? No...I didn't think so either...............................



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
If you know more than the Courts, how is it you do not know that an "Enacting Clause" can simply be identifying the Legislature who passed the Law?

You do know the Legislature has the Authority, under predefined circumstances, to change the Law or even Amend a Constitution? Whatever they determine the Law is, the Law is.

If the State stepped in on behalf of an injured Party it usually means there is a pattern of whatever behavior caused the Suit. Since you are withholding any real information, you're just trying to get people to agree with you and not trying to find the truth. I actually had a talk with an AG about a problem I had with a bad company and he told me, before the State can represent you we have to have enough similar complaints to show a pattern, then we can represent you.

I had the misfortune of meeting some of the Freemen in Montana. All of them were also in the Aryan Nation as well. They hammered me with video's and books I watched, read and discounted as crap. They would not stop bothering me. I was glad when I finished my job and went back home. I'm to polite for my own good at times.

They bragged to me openly about their criminal activities which included things like fake Land Deeds, tricking Banks into Loans with lies and not only not making any payments, but refusing to leave. Before it was over a couple of them I met went to prison. They even printed fake money and made themselves welcome to other peoples land.

The most disgusting bunch of people I've ever met in fact. Two of them came in one day bragging to me about all the Elk they Poach. They told me they take the heads to Denver once a year to an auction and sell them to rich folk to pretend they got them hunting. Showed me a Trophy Rack in their truck and it was not season yet. They apparently would wait until the season opened, get a tag and then use that tag so they could transport and sell what they poached. If what they shot was not Trophy class they left it lay.

It's hard for me to describe adequately just how sleazy these clowns were. I saw two of them on CNN a couple of years later on a story about their arrest.

Your real problem is the Legislatures of both the Federal Government and the State Governments have the power to author Laws. From that moment forward it is the Law. Period end of subject. The Freemen crap will get you locked up and it IS NOT TRUE, that is why you only see criminals attempting to use it.

You can't get out of a crime, Civil or Criminal by using the insane defense of Common or Admiralty Law. It's terrible naive to even try and of course they get angry at you. You walk in and start spouting nonsense from a criminal organization as facts and tell them how to do their jobs, how would you react?

Good luck, you have already lost. You can't fight the system through legal nonsense spewed by criminal organizations but you can learn to use it and live under it. Civil means you did harm to somebody, somehow. You can't be proud of it or you would give details. If it was nothing, you would be open about it.

Most people go through there whole lives, never being arrested or bothered. Those who have constant run-in's with the Law are always guilty in my experience. Even me when I was young and dumb. I grew up and a Mentor taught me to use the system as intended and it works.


Shhhh....don't tell them it doens't work. Let them think they can cheat the system and win when they deserve not to.





new topics
 
151
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join