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

page: 7
151
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 02:45 AM
link   
Yes we are correct. However common law is not the only way - there are many ways to skin a cat, playing the belligerant debtor at common law is not always the best one.

The main statutory law/case law/commercial law/admirality law side of the basket is a different jurisdiction from common law. You only enter admirality law through contract and consent to being a person in various ways - a person is a corporation/trust found usually on a birth certificate and usually a member of society in mutual consent (look up definition of society and person in law dictionary) . Answering to your 'name' (person in society under statutes), giving drivers 'license'(commercial driving affidavit), standing up, sitting down, failing to answer, standing under, contracting, signing etc... we learn all these pitfalls and always remain in sovereignity and in honour. We don't enter a court room without securing judgement beforehand.


I've put four peace officers on oath and asked them about their oaths, confirmed the office of constabulary is a common law jurisdiction, enquired about common law vs statutory law and they all confirmed the same thing; statutory law requires consent. It is created by others and not agreed to by everyone. If it didn't require consent there would be nearly no difference to the '1st world' and nazi Germany other than the millitary police. Think on that...

Still don't believe me?

www.youtube.com...

Open your mind - the judge bows to the sovereign. Another good freeman to learn from is Raymond St.Clair. He has made magistrates walk out quite a few times and knows his law well. tpuc.org. fmotl.com suijurisclub.net and 1215.org are the best sites I know of for this. 1215 is a very good study guide. Don't just go out thinking you can use this straight away, it requires much learning, practice and checking. And don't believe any of us sovereigns or anyone else - you must trust yourself first.

Disclaimer: this post is not legal advice it is merely for informational purposes
edit on 9/3/11 by GhostR1der because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by GhostR1der
 


Re the Youtube video you linked:


GUELPH — A city man whose initial court proceedings were videotaped and uploaded on YouTube has 15 days to pay a $260 fine.

Keith Thompson failed to show in Guelph’s provincial offences court Thursday but his trial proceeded in his absence. The court found him guilty of two offences of illegally parking a car outside a driveway or a legal off-street parking area.

When the justice of the peace took a recess, during Thompson’s matter on Sept. 1, Thompson considered the case closed. However, the court later reconvened and adjourned his matter to Sept. 30.

Source

That video is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Anyone who isn't under arrest can walk out of a recessed courtroom. Claiming victory on the way out means nothing at all.

~Heff



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Courts being a vessel; the term man overboard is used to describe the situation at hand. The court was abandoned. The only grey area is that the call for abandoned court was/was not quick enough for the clerk to claim recess. If the prior is the situation, the highest authority would then be the sovereign, thus dismissed the case. edit: another thing to keep in mind is the right to a trial without undue delay. Being shunted to the end of the list because of a freeman defense and then recess called 2 minutes in isn't exactly a speedy trial.
Just because they'll send the fine, doesn't mean he hasn't won. The birth certificate can't be made to pay the fine. Back round in circles; they gain no jurisdiction to enforce the fines in his absence - it requires consent again.

Same thing happened to Raymond St.Clair - a judgement signed against him before court even convened, they'll send stuff out anyway regardless of if they [magistrates] loose in court. What really matters is that the court never had any jurisdiction to do so - same with in the video I linked. They almost never will admit that it works in writing.

And this video with Raymond St Clair www.youtube.com... www.youtube.com...

Raymond kicks their ass and gets the common law constabulary to help out.

edit2: Another thing to keep in mind is that the legal fiction/birth certificate/person summoned was entered into court for and on the record with witnesses and no judgement was passed.
edit on 9/3/11 by GhostR1der because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Here is an explanation of what law is in first two minutes



edit on 9-3-2011 by FIFIGI because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by GhostR1der
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Courts being a vessel; the term man overboard is used to describe the situation at hand. The court was abandoned. The only grey area is that the call for abandoned court was/was not quick enough for the clerk to claim recess. If the prior is the situation, the highest authority would then be the sovereign, thus dismissed the case. edit: another thing to keep in mind is the right to a trial without undue delay. Being shunted to the end of the list because of a freeman defense and then recess called 2 minutes in isn't exactly a speedy trial.
Just because they'll send the fine, doesn't mean he hasn't won. The birth certificate can't be made to pay the fine. Back round in circles; they gain no jurisdiction to enforce the fines in his absence - it requires consent again.


A right to a fair and swift trial has nothing to do with the order of the Calender call of the court. I would not advise seeking to excuse oneself from court solely based upon the order of cases heard on a given day.

BTW the authorities will not be garnishing the wages of or seizing the property of a birth certificate. They will, however subject Mr Thomson to the following:


Thompson declined comment on Thursday. However, in a previous interview, he has said that as a “freeman on the land” laws don’t apply to him.

A freeman on the land is someone who lawfully refuses giving consent to be governed and believes no statute or act of government applies.

A failure to pay court fines can result in collection efforts, which include wage garnishments, bank garnishments, seizure and sale of property and interception of assets.

From the source linked in my previous post.


Originally posted by GhostR1der

Same thing happened to Raymond St.Clair - a judgement signed against him before court even convened, they'll send stuff out anyway regardless of if they [magistrates] loose in court. What really matters is that the court never had any jurisdiction to do so - same with in the video I linked. They almost never will admit that it works in writing.

And this video with Raymond St Clair www.youtube.com... www.youtube.com...

Raymond kicks their ass and gets the common law constabulary to help out.

edit2: Another thing to keep in mind is that the legal fiction/birth certificate/person summoned was entered into court for and on the record with witnesses and no judgement was passed.
edit on 9/3/11 by GhostR1der because: (no reason given)


At 6:48 seconds of the second video, about Raymond St Clair, a document is shown with a highlighted area that reads:


"Whilst your associates informed me that you were present in court it is unfortunate that you did not make yourself known to the court"


This is mean to infer some specious association to Admiralty or common law concepts, and the narrator goes to great lengths to explain how Mr St Clair has befuddled the system and laid low the authority of the court.

What is said in the area of the document that is NOT highlighted bears mention:


The liability order has been awarded and I have enclosed a photocopy of the relevant entry in the list for your information together the signed summary sheet.

There is currently £308.00 outstanding on your account and as previously stated we will instruct Bailiffs to recover the outstanding monies if necessary. Obviously we would like to avoid the involvement of the Bailiff is possible."


So, to understand the position... "Freemen" supply these same two video links, in each and every thread that comes up on this subject, and falsely represent them as courtroom victories. Then, when it is proven, in public record, that these events were not victories at all, but cases of summary judgment in absentia, defense shifts back to "Well they can't punish a straw man." arguments? But they can and they do. In all my years of researching alternative news I have never seen a single verifiable case of anyone winning with these tactics. Not a single one. Apparently a few traffic tickets have resulted in dropped charges from Judges who simply got flustered and did not want to be bothered. But beyond that? Not a single criminal charge has ever been defeated with a "Sovereign" citizen defense.

Can you prove me wrong? The two "go-to" videos, already linked several times in just this one thread, are not proof of success. I have never seen a single case summary supporting this urban legend.

~Heff

ETA: Please understand (all who read this), I am not a government shill, nor a lemming. And I do not mean to come across as cold or divisive. But this issue does invoke my passion because the OP is a real person and the consequences of his actions will effect his real life. I love, very much, debating such issues in circumstances where no real harm can be done. But I cannot, in good conscience, remove myself from the fray when a persons freedom may be at stake.

OP: Please bear in mind that not a single person here, including myself, have any accountability to you. I implore you to educate yourself as best you can and triple check any advice offered here, preferably with a member of the Bar Association.

edit on 3/9/11 by Hefficide because: typo and addition



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by greenovni
 




Nice Post! I surely will do some more research.

One thing about the birth certificate, my BC has been voided by the state, as well as 100s of thousands of my countrymen As seen here: & yes, we are born with American citizenship

Since the MR. is the birth certificate, does this mean that in fact the state has killed MR. Whatever? And if so, how would I point that out in court?

Now, my case is a civil matter brought by the State of Florida on BEHALF of someone else - I went to the court to see which courtroom it would be at and lo and behold - no court room The case will be held by a "hearing officer" (not a real judge) - in his little office @ the courthouse. This man does not even wear a black robe! Little office, 3 chairs, a desk and the hearing officer's chair.


That's an odd situation with the birth certificate.

I'd say, if the state has voided your BC, then they have effectively destroyed the corporate fictitious entity called 'Mr.' Joe Bloggs..which means that only the real, living and breathing Freeman Joe Bloggs remains.

The reason why we are given this corporate entity at birth as a replacement for the Freeman identity, is so we can become subject to corporate and 'legal' law...or acts and statutes IOW. Without your birth certificate, and hence without the corporate, made-up 'person' Mr. JB, a 'legal' court has no jurisdiction over you...only over the Mr...the Birth certificate, which now does not exist.

If you accept a NEW birth certificate, you will be effectively accepting a new corporate identity and 'trading as' a Mr once again, and once again subject to corporate law of course.

Your 'legal' (corporate) status at the moment is null and void, which is why (i suspect) you are not being brought before a court proper, and are going up in front of an 'officer' instead. The 'Officer' is a corporate officer, and as such will be dealing with 'legal' acts and statutes, rather than common law and lawful proceedings.

My initial take on it, would be to refuse to offer yourself up to this 'officers' jurisdiction. Your corporate 'person' does not exist any longer, so a corporate officer has no jurisdiction over a non-corporate entity, or Freeman...UNLESS you consent to that corporate jurisdiction, by presenting yourself to his authority.

I would recommend researching where you stand lawfully on simply informing this fake court that since the Officer presiding has NOT taken his/her oath to uphold common law, he has no jurisdiction, and that you insist that your case either be heard by a judge that HAS taken his or her oath to uphold common law, or the case dismissed as the fictitious person that the case is directed at, and whom would have been subject to the 'legal corporate jurisdiction of the fake court, (MR. JB) no longer exists.

But i'm glad you are going to research this more, because i know virtually nothing about all this, only the basics i've outlined here and in my other post.

There MAY WELL be incorrect or inaccurate information here, or just a simpler, better way to do things, so definitely check everything you're being told here before planning to use it.

As Maxmars has said in his post...you're going to be on your own in the court, or hearing (if you go), and none of us big mouths are going to be in there with you. (good point MM)

Good luck, but i think the crucial thing here is not allowing the 'legal people' to get you to give up your common law rights and accept their corporate jurisdiction, where acts and statutes apply to you..(where they do not apply to the Freeman).



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 05:09 AM
link   
this story reminds me alot of me and my younger brother.
if we get into a debate and i bring up a perfect point that wins it for me, hell just tell me to shut up.
just like that women and the officers.
they lost, so you got ejected.
people want to hear what they want to hear. everything else can just be tuned out. now we just need to tune it to the proper channel..
ps. goodluck with your case



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 




What would happen if there was widespread knowledge that could void the majority of laws in place?


We'd have a much fairer society i imagine.

The vast majority of acts and statutes in no way shape or form have anything to do with lawful justice and everything to do with money and control and the accumulation of more of it.

The only just laws are concerning harming others, and their property (damage, steal, destroy), and fraud and making bad contracts with individuals.

Everything else, is simply designed to be a nice little earner for the 'corporation' and a large stick to control folks with.

But you're right, it IS a minefield, and we need to know more about this.

As you say, these 'people' have had centuries to mould and bend and ultimately (and treasonous) subvert the law of the land (common law) in favour of the more profitable and controlling corporate law, which has to have the consent of the public to have any authority over them.

You don't give your consent to stand under (understand, standing up, see?) the authority of the corporate court, whether tacit consent (implied or indicated) or overt and open consent it doesn't matter, and the corporate legal system does not apply to the Freeman (subject to common law), if you do agree (implied or direct) to the courts authority, every act and statute becomes applicable to you (your corporate identity).



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 




its broke educate and replace with common law
or the rich never face justice
and the poor never see justice


Exactly.

Well said mate.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by MMPI2
reply to post by greenovni
 


im curious to know what the nature of the dispute is...did you default on a loan, leave your lawn unmowed, not pay a bill?



Child support for a child that is not biologically mine.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
The two things that prove this 'freeman' concept is a load of rubbish are, firstly, the lack of a follow-up to these videos and, secondly, the lack of entrepreneurs who could easily become a billionaire through marketing this supposed idea.


On the first point, if you see all of the videos doing the rounds on this subject, then you see how they always leave the courtroom with a 'cliffhanger' situation, which the ''freemen'' usually claim as a victory.

In reality, the court has been adjourned due to the obstinacy of the defendant, and the fine is imposed after a court session at a later date ( when the defendant is not present ).


The second point is pretty obvious: in the UK examples that I've seen, the main ''crime'' that the defendant is challenging, is the non-payment of Council Tax.

Considering that there are probably 20 million Council Tax payers in Britain, then wouldn't somebody create a service that provided advice, information, training courses and seminars on how to not pay this tax ?

If I had access to genuine knowledge that would beat this system, then I would become a billionaire in a few years.

The fact that one of the leading British 'luminaries' in this field is a conman, tells us pretty much all that we need to know about this idea...



Yet, in the OP video we have a chief US judge saying that the court is a court of common law.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by realbadger
reply to post by greenovni
 

It's the other way around, really. There are No Longer actual common law courts: they ARE all Admiralty/Maritime courts, due to the military standard they falsely claim being the flag.
(And why was the unhelpful lady thinking that statutes are statues?)
In the video, the cue-card reading judge refers to "our system of common law justice," not that the COURTS there are common law courts... It's a cleverly worded bit of PR.


The video is part of my "evidence" as cleverly as it is worded by the judge. You see, I am going up in his court soon, and will try with all my might to take them to task for their fraud to be exposed.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheQuadFather
If you want to do research check out these web sites.Since this topic always get a debate going I will not say anything about whether I have used this and it works or that it does not work. Just go to the sites, read and decide for yourselves if you want to take the steps needed to fully become free. Just remember one thing if you do decide to go this route. If you mess up on one tiny thing when arguing your case, no matter how much you think you have prepared for it they GOT YA! So be warned you better bring your lunch and not slip up AT ALL or they got ya by the BALLS!!

worldfreemansociety.org...

www.thinkfreeforums.org...

www.thinkfree.ca...

www.winstonshroutsolutionsincommerce.com...



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


In my case, I am not going the freemen route - I am going after the heart of the case which is subject matter jurisdiction & that the particular statue that they want to enforce is void since it is lacking the enacting clause as it is called on the Constitution...



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by greenovni
 


I urge you to get a real lawyer before you further screw things up for yourself. It doesn't matter whether you recognize the court's authority or think you've found a loophole in the statute they are enforcing.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:19 AM
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.

No, Municipal is just a small, lower court which tries "criminal" type cases. It is still a court of Equity. ALL incorporated towns and cities are in the business of profit.

They sold "bonds" to the Elite to fund the city or town, and now they have to make a PROFIT FOR the Elite. So they screw over the towns people who are unsuspecting and share the stolen wealth and property with the Elite.

Ever hear of "Robin Hood", that is to say............Robbin the hood!!! Stealing from the general populace to line their own pockets,

Nice racketeering scheme huh!!!!!!!!
edit on 9-3-2011 by daddio because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:25 AM
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.


Misguided.... Heard that same exact phrase many times at the court house.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrong

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.


I'm not even mad as I know exactly what steps to take to kick some rump @ the court and am willing to take them no matter the consequences. Those questions were not asked in the court room as the case has not been hear.

Leave the law and its interpretation to the lawyers? You must be out of your damn mind! If I let "lawyers" handle something that affects me directly, I know for a fact that they'll side with the court automatically regardless of how I want my case handled.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by greenovni
 


You have obviously read my thread...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
You make out your security agreement first, then you file the UCC-1 and the UCC-3 to claim all your property. Then you make out your "Power of Attornay in Fact" and get that filed, this removes the jurisdcition that everyone is talking about. UNTIL you file YOUR "Power of Attorney in Fact", the state/court has the authority.

The Power of Attorney makes YOU, the flesh and blood you, the legal representative and can not be ignored. This is what I have done and I present/provide this, by certified mail, to the court before I get there.

Then it is game on.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

This is a debate that I have recused myself from since joining staff.

~Heff


I would be interseted to know, why did you chose not to recuse yourself this time??

Was there something mentioned that you felt had to be cleared up? perhaps because of it's ill to the casual reader?

Please, help me to understand just exactly why you did chose this time to respond?

This may be helpful to all those who are on the fence on this issue.......................

Thank You for your consideration on this.

Parker



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ParkerCramer
 


As I mentioned earlier, discussions of this subject most often are in the abstract. With my fairly extensive posting history there really isn't a need for me to rehash the same arguments as in previous endeavors. This particular thread, however, is not in the abstract. A persons freedom is at stake. The OP does not need to acknowledge or heed my thoughts, and will do as he sees fit. But I will, at least, know that I followed my conscience in voicing my concerns.

I am a believer in reciprocity. The golden rule. I do try to treat others as I would wish them to treat me. Or at least I make a concerted effort to that end.


~Heff





top topics
 
151
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join