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

reply to post by Wrong

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

Now you're deflecting. Your ignorance of the law is inexcusable. You can rant all you want, you have made it perfectly clear you are a sycophant of tyranny. You do not demand "proof" because you wish it to be true, you demand this "proof" because you fancy yourself a debunker of freedom. Fancy that, a freedom debunker. Nice one.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Wrong

 

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

Now you're deflecting. Your ignorance of the law is inexcusable. You can rant all you want, you have made it perfectly clear you are a sycophant of tyranny. You do not demand "proof" because you wish it to be true, you demand this "proof" because you fancy yourself a debunker of freedom. Fancy that, a freedom debunker. Nice one.

Do you have proof? Show me proof that it works from an actual coutroom in an acceptable source to academia/the courts aka not youtube or abovetopsecret. Answer the question, it is a yes or no question.

reply to post by Wrong

Do you have proof? Show me proof that it works from an actual coutroom in an acceptable source to academia/the courts aka not youtube or abovetopsecret. Answer the question, it is a yes or no question.

Proof of what? Do you want me to prove that case law is the actual case of a court trial, because that is the only claim I have made in this thread, besides you being a sycophant of tyranny, and I need not prove that, as you are doing a fine job all on your own?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Wrong

 

Proof of what? Do you want me to prove that case law is the actual case of a court trial, because that is the only claim I have made in this thread, besides you being a sycophant of tyranny, and I need not prove that, as you are doing a fine job all on your own?

I ask for a third to fourth time. Do you have proof that this "freeman" rant works in court or that the court doesn't have jurisdiction? Yes or no. Answer the question instead of resorting to personal attacks. Acceptable forms of proof would be a transcript of the proceeding or case law. Obviously since you have failed to answer it the previous times, you have no proof that it works therefore it is fair to say this method works not in a court.

Common law is very real...at least here in the UK.
If you live with a partner for a certain amount of time....you become their common law husband/wife.
If common law were not in existence today...why did they celebrate the 800 year anniversary of the Magna Carta??

www.bbc.co.uk...

When you are tried for murder you are tried under common law

topics.law.cornell.edu...

Its real...its just not talked about very often for the pure fact it was created to protect the people from the state.
Unless you are a judge its very unlikely you will ever get to the bottom of the subject. Only certain people are given the privilege of becoming a judge or QC...doesnt matter how well you did at university, or what type of law degree you received...if your not part of their circle of friends/family you wont become a judge. Why?? Because they dont want the peasants knowing the truth about law. Even the wording in law is different to that used in normal life.
Blacks Law dictionaries are used to define wording in statutes etc. If a statute was created in 1998 for example you would need a copy of blacks laws 5th edition....if a statute was created in 2000 you would need a blacks law 9th edition. The definition of the words change, so the relevant dictionary has to be used to decipher the true meaning of the word.

Im no expert on the matter but thats what ive learnt over time.

EDIT: A good place to start learning law is here :

www.law.cornell.edu...

reply to post by Wrong

I ask for a third to fourth time. Do you have proof that this "freeman" rant works in court or that the court doesn't have jurisdiction? Yes or no. Answer the question instead of resorting to personal attacks. Acceptable forms of proof would be a transcript of the proceeding or case law. Obviously since you have failed to answer it the previous times, you have no proof that it works therefore it is fair to say this method works not in a court.

Only a fool would demand someone who has made no claims of the freeman movement one way or the other, prove their efficacy. Since you pretend to be so good at sighting the obvious, take a hard look at that.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Wrong

 

I ask for a third to fourth time. Do you have proof that this "freeman" rant works in court or that the court doesn't have jurisdiction? Yes or no. Answer the question instead of resorting to personal attacks. Acceptable forms of proof would be a transcript of the proceeding or case law. Obviously since you have failed to answer it the previous times, you have no proof that it works therefore it is fair to say this method works not in a court.

Only a fool would demand someone who has made no claims of the freeman movement one way or the other, prove their efficacy. Since you pretend to be so good at sighting the obvious, take a hard look at that.

You seemed to have made a motion of responding to my inquiry. I will not resort to using your personal attacks in lieu of evidence supporting a claim or having no stronger points to lean upon in a logical argument.

reply to post by Wrong

You seemed to have made a motion of responding to my inquiry. I will not resort to using your personal attacks in lieu of evidence supporting a claim or having no stronger points to lean upon in a logical argument.

What form of nonsense is this? I seem to have made a motion of responding to your inquiry, did I? You will not resort to using my personal attacks in lieu of evidence supporting a claim or having no stronger points to lean upon in a logical argument, will you not? Jesus, read your own nonsense, will you?

reply to post by Wrong


So you don't like youtube videos. Well guess what, this man is from Guelph Ontario, Canada, and this obviously not staged, it's for real. Not only is it real, but for the longest time on hearing about the freeman movement, I didn't know what to think, because their language, and corporate Navy law, and even the state of Corporate Nation, is complete Treason and Crimes Against Humanity, so its no wonder they keep a tight lid on this. It won't wash over with people well.

But, if it wasn't true, this man would not have declared, the Judge abandons the courtroom and dismissed his case, and walked out.

We both know that, eh?

That should be crystal clear.

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by Wrong

 

So you don't like youtube videos. Well guess what, this man is from Guelph Ontario, and this obviously not staged, it's for real. Not only is it real, but for the longest time on hearing this, I didn't know what to think, because their language, and corporate Navy law, and even the state of Corporate Nation, is complete Treason and Crimes Against Humanity, so its no wonder they keep a tight lid on this. It won't wash over with people well.

But, if it wasn't true, this man would not have declared, the Judge abandons the courtroom and dismissed his case, and walked out.

We both know that, eh?

That should be crystal clear.

edit on 8-3-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

What law system are we even talking about? The OP lives in Flordia. That is the US. Someone was trying to bring in UK laws and now you are bringing in the laws of Canada. We have three different places with three different legal systems. That is like me trying to compare the English Bill of Rights to the Bill of Rights in the United States.

Edit: I also see him being rude aka trying to talk over people. He came wanting something and got his case dismissed because he cannot follow the rules of the court. Why would you need the Freeman argument unless you think yourself better than the law or that you are going to "out law" the law?

reply to post by Wrong

MEMORANDUM OF LAW
This Claim through Common Law Lien is an action at Substantive Common Law, not in Equity, and is for the repair, maintenance, improvement or performance of an obligation of the herein described property and in relation to other properties as of Substantive Common Law, is distinguished from mere, "common law procedure". Lawyers and judges are misinformed to think, plead, rule or order that the substantive common law rights and immunities have been abolished in Minnesota or any other state. Only "Common Law procedure" created by the chancel or/chancery has been abolished. That is to say, the "forms" of common law and equity were abolished, (Kimball v. Mclntyre, 3 U 77, 1 P 167), or that the distinctions between the forms of common law and equity were abolished by
Rule 2 of Civil Procedure (Donis v. Utah R.R., 3 U 218, 223 P 521).


However, the abolition of mere form, does NOT affect nor diminish our SUBSTANTIVE (Common Law and Constitutional) Rights and immunities (USC 78-2-4,S.2) for substantive law, e.g. our UNALIENABLE Rights Immunities, and has not changed with the state's adoption of Rule 2, combining the courts form, remedial, ancillary adjective procedures, (see Bonding v. Nonatny, 200 Iowa, 227,202 N.W.588) for matters of substance are in the main the same as at substantive Common Law, (Calif. Land v. Halloran, 82U 267,17 P2d 209) and old terms (words and phrases describing law and substantive procedures) used in Common Law can NOT be ignored (O'Neill v. San Pedro RR, 38 U 475, 479, 114 P 127), the modifications resulting being severely limited in operation, effect, and extent (Maxfield v. West 6 U 379,- 24 P 98) for a total abolishment of even the purely equity or purely Common Law forms has NOT been realized, and must ever be kept in mind (Donis v. Utah RR, supra.)
Thus a right to establish a "Common Law Lien" is not, and was NOT dependent upon a statute or chancery rule for its creation as a remedy, and where the right to establish a "Common Law Lien" is a part of SUBSTANTIVE Common Law our right is antecedent to creation of the "state" or its chancery/procedure which right runs to time immemorial (Western Union v. Call, 21 SCt 561,181 US 765)

We must be sustained in our acts, mere chancery, equity having
no jurisdiction so to counter:

"...if the facts stated (see facts related to our "Common Law Lien")
entitled litigant (Demandant) to ANY remedy or relief under SUBSTANTIVE LAW
(supra), then he has stated good subject matter (cause of action)—and the
Court MUST enter judgment in (our) favor—in so far as an attack on the
sufficiency of (Demandant) leadings are concerned." (Williams v Nelson 45 U
255, 145 P 39; Kaun v McAllister, 1 U 273, affirmed 96 U 587, 24 LEd 615.)"

Now this is part of my Common Law Lien. It is a security for the repair, maintenance and improvements to MY property. I do not pay property taxes either, but that is another form you must file and have it recorded.

As I posted previous, Common Law DOES in fact exist and is still recognized by the courts, when jurisdiction is claimed by the people and NOT "person".

Here again:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment... In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) (emphasis mine)

What else can I say?

reply to post by Wrong


This video is Canada. Its used in the UK, Canada, and the US, as has been testified to in this thread and you can also find similar videos, and information.

Its not necessary to find only Florida ones.

The second quote doesn't further your claim. An unconstitutional law is void. How does that show that a freeman rant wins in courts?

reply to post by Wrong


Your law is based on english law....maybe try educating yourself a little and visit the links i provided.
Most law in western society is based on english law...common law.

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by Wrong

 

This video is Canada. Its used in the UK, Canada, and the US, as has been testified to in this thread and you can also find similar videos, and information.

Its not necessary to find only Florida ones.

This is Canada. Would I be correct in saying that the laws in Canada are different than in the US?

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
reply to post by Wrong

 

Your law is based on english law....maybe try educating yourself a little and visit the links i provided.
Most law in western society is based on english law...common law.

Right...that doesn't mean that the laws are the same from the UK to the US. People have been mixing them together.

By the way, I would have the hardest time even trying the Freeman approach, though I think every community should have a group of lay representatives and a educational society about this ie. with presence in the community, often speaking and showing up for community events and really educating others. This is part of awareness of the world they're in, and don't realize.

Yet I could never do this. I would pay the fines, unless it was something I had to go into court for, and then I would treat the judge, and anyone in positions of stolen authority in this pyramid system as endorses of the ritual child sacrifices, the wars, starvation, diseases, illlegal drug laws, illegal laws period, traitors and criminals. I would tell them the truth, and perform a citizens arrest. Because I could not lie. I so absolutely do not endorse their system I could never pretend I do. I would always speak up and tell them what I think of the whole thing and anyone so corrupt to co-conspire with these criminals at the top by not speaking up.

You know truth and you don't speak up. You are a co-murderer, co-hitler, co-ritualistic killer of children. Its your hand that pushes the buttons and drops the bombs on babies. You are the one enslaving the people.

I renounce, denounce and forever, underscored to infinity and beyond, the governments, the courts, the judges, the military, the police, the banks, the realtors, and the corporations. They are evil henchmen.

Even the ones who are not bad, are corrupt by not speaking up.

Speak up everyone.

Originally posted by Wrong

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
reply to post by Wrong

 

Your law is based on english law....maybe try educating yourself a little and visit the links i provided.
Most law in western society is based on english law...common law.

Right...that doesn't mean that the laws are the same from the UK to the US. People have been mixing them together.

Common law is common law....it doesnt change...that was the whole purpose of it
You have different statutes....but thats not law is it Thats a rule given the force of law by the governed....notice the word FORCE...its not law.

I could never play games with standing up, sitting down, hats on or off, using the right words. My words are you are so under arrest for crimes agaisnt humanity. Period. I don't care what they do, I will speak the truth.

And, if and when I would be free again, BULLHORN TIME.

Originally posted by Unity_99
By the way, I would have the hardest time even trying the Freeman approach, though I think every community should have a group of lay representatives and a educational society about this ie. with presence in the community, often speaking and showing up for community events and really educating others. This is part of awareness of the world they're in, and don't realize.

Yet I could never do this. I would pay the fines, unless it was something I had to go into court for, and then I would treat the judge, and anyone in positions of stolen authority in this pyramid system as endorses of the ritual child sacrifices, the wars, starvation, diseases, illlegal drug laws, illegal laws period, traitors and criminals. I would tell them the truth, and perform a citizens arrest. Because I could not lie. I so absolutely do not endorse their system I could never pretend I do. I would always speak up and tell them what I think of the whole thing and anyone so corrupt to co-conspire with these criminals at the top by not speaking up.

You know truth and you don't speak up. You are a co-murderer, co-hitler, co-ritualistic killer of children. Its your hand that pushes the buttons and drops the bombs on babies. You are the one enslaving the people.

I renounce, denounce and forever, underscored to infinity and beyond, the governments, the courts, the judges, the military, the police, the banks, the realtors, and the corporations. They are evil henchmen.

Even the ones who are not bad, are corrupt by not speaking up.

Speak up everyone.

And the truth comes out. I bet many others who "renounce...governments" also love the "freeman" rant. Stick it to the man right?