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

page: 8
151
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
I'm almost sorry I found this thread. You may not believe me, and that's your right, but my law degree is from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. I have many years of federal law enforcement experience and have provided personal opinions on prosecution to the US Attorney in Milwaukee on several occasions.

It is possible that you might win a low level case using these tactics if the staff decides they don't care or can't be bothered. You may be just be dismissed as a harmless nut and allowed to avoid a fine. (The odds of this happening are incredibly small, but I suppose it is conceivable.)

But please, and I can't stress this enough, at least talk to an attorney about your situation before you do anything. Many attorneys will take a few cases each year pro bono (free). Many will give you a half hour of free consultation. Lots of them have fees based in part on your income. Your State Bar Association will help you find a lawyer that practises in the area you're having a problem with.

I recall a case where a man attempted to defraud the government out of some tax money. The person was clearly repentant, afraid, and was willing to make restitution. I recommended probation. Another fellow with a bad attitude led me to suggest to the US Attorney that the sentence had to be stricter to show the man the seriousness of committing crimes and mocking the law.

Again, if your case is about anything bigger than a few dollars and you're in the US, please don't try the techniques described here.
edit on 9-3-2011 by charles1952 because: Clarification


Your advice sounds very sane, and logical................

My question to you would be, do you have any expierence that is not from law school, or from the status quo legal community??

Have you personally been a witness/party to one of these freeman cases?

I'm sure you would have to agree that your opinions are very biased in their nature, simply because you make a living from the system that we have been led to believe is "The Law."

And, if I am not mistaken you have taken an oath to uphold that law as an "Officer of the Court."

Would be very interested to hear from you on the actual "Common Law" vs. "Statutes" that this thread is really about.

ThankYou

Parker




posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
From my research and experimentation with I.D. I have found that the freemen are indeed correct. also to anyone who is wanting to find out more about freemen and strawmen the KEY is in the CAPITALS. MAY WE ALL TAKE OUR FREEDOM BACK!



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:13 AM
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.


Wow! Blaine calls me a criminal with out even knowing me not anything about the case.

Let's break down your ignorant post real quick.

1.

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?


The enacting clause of EVERY law SHALL read: “Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:”.

That CLEARLY MEANS that the enacting clause MUST be written in every single law - a missing enacting clause makes the law void.

2.


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.


The state is representing a custodial mother in a child support case. The Florida Department of Revenue (DOR).

To make it even better, the child is not mine biologically so why in the world should I pay CS and agree with the court's FRAUD?

Don't think it happens to guys that have proven via DNA that the kid is not his and YET the court claims that "unfortunately" the statue says that he has to pay whether he is the bio dad or not!



3.

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.


I have never met any "freemen" and your whole argument of Aryan gringos is moot as I am Hispanic just like the poor guy in the above video.

4.


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.


Yes, my crime was a 1 night stand when I was 16 and the woman was 29. My crime was not knowing what to do when hit with a summons for child support court, my crime was not showing up to court (it was a school day), my crime was that statue says that a woman can commit PATERNITY fraud and still be supported in said fraud by the court.

5.


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.


This is the country with the HIGHEST incarceration rates in the whole world & to top it off, most people are in jail for complete BS.

I am glad that you got a mentor that thought you how to be a sheep!
edit on 9-3-2011 by greenovni because: Malformed video ID



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide




.

Other domestic terror threats:

- Sovereign citizens movement




~Heff


I read the link you posted, and, yes it does read like propoganda, I also would have to believe that for every crime listed, murder, robbery, forgery, etc. that is committed by "Soverign Citizens" THOUSANDS will be commited by individuals that don't even know what "Sovereignty" is...............

Would you agree??

Your argument is still just based on "because they say it's so"

That does not make for a very good claim to denying ignorance.

Parker



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by greenovni
 


Great actions!! But you made one mistake.

As you enter the courtroom for your arraignment, do not state ANYTHING except that you would like a court reporter present if one is not present.
Do not admit your straw man name, hell, keep TOTALLY SILENT until a court reporter is present.
IT IS YOUR RIGHT!!!!

WAIT UNTIL a court reporter is present and THEN ask the JUDGE to tell you in what type of courtroom you are being charged.
This will go into public record and the last thing that the judges want is the populace to know that our courtrooms are courts of Admiralty Law, and if the entire exchange is on the court record then they are essentially putting themselves in a catch 22 by answering the question.
If they state that it is a courtroom of statutory law then they are in violation of the US Constitution. They are LYING!!!!
They will have no choice but to drop the case or admit that the courtroom is an Admiralty Courtroom.
If they give you any crap, then recite the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and then repeat to the judge the three types of courts that are allowable, by law, according to the US Constitution.

Common Law, Civil Law, and Admiralty Law.

But the key to this entire thing is that a court reporter MUST be present for this to go on the official record.

S & F!!!



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Do you have the final disposition of this case?? If so, could you provide us with that?

I found it pretty amazing that even after the Judge asked the baliffs/ cops to step in, they backed right off when the defendant threatened to sue them for assualt.............

Can you show us any other documented cases, where the police backed off just because someone threatened to sue them???

It would seem that he said something that made those LEO's think twice...........

Just an observation.

Parker



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ParkerCramer
 


Regarding the FBI issue... I would not refer to it as "making an argument". It is more pointing out a reality. There is no commentary, on my part, as to the right or wrong of it. I simply stated that it is so.

~Heff



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
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.


It is amazing as to how many people call something clearly stated in the constitution a "loophole". Want to spring some $$ for a lawyer? I take paypal!



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ParkerCramer
 


The most recent thing I could find on the public record about Mr Thompsons case is this:


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.

On each offence, Thompson was fined $130.

Source.

Seeing that Mr Thompsons Myspace does not mention anything about it, and that the trail does end there, I feel he probably paid the fine. Of course, others will conclude the opposite. I have means of searching US court records (to a degree) but not Canadian records. So this is as far as I can research.

It does bear mention that Mr Thompson was in court for a parking violation, a very minor trespass. The OP is discussing, by his own admission, child support. A very different situation, legally speaking.

~Heff



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Heff:
I can comprehend your reservations and I like your work! It is hard to explain and comprehend law within a thread, as there are many facets and foundations to various parts. Remember that the common law method is pretty much the 'belligerant debtor' approach, usually being viewed from a commercial court with utter disdain and treated as a no-show often as they fail to get jurisdication. It can be seen as dishonourable in some ways.

Summary judgement is without consent again; it is unlawful without prior contract. Baliffs are liable for damages for unlawfully entering and or theft without prior contract as they are commercial agents of the court (who is principal), forcibly executing commercial law under full commercial liability and most are not bonded either, which means any liabilities would come from them.

You are however shining a spotlight on the crux of the matter; without your intervention the government is the trustee in control of your strawman and you are the beneficiary, thus sometimes enabling fine recovery to proceed as it's their asset to do so (if able to in particular circumstance) and continuously lay claim to your strawman. They however do not under any circumstance have jursdiction over the flesh and blood body. This is where most begin to fail who take the common law approach - it's not easy to live in a commercial world without mastery of commercial law too. You can also claim to use credit under protest and duress. There are other methods able to be used to more effectively secure land and chattel using the uniform commercial code, rather than simple common law claim of right and or court process, which is the last resort and most basic approach. Usage of this method would avoid this issue occuring in the first place, as at all times you would be in honour even in a commerical court, however this is far outside the scope of this common law topic though.


For a common law approach in US court transcript there is the classic 'Randy Lee'';

www.ecclesia.org...

Only link I can find on it, there are others but it's been a while since i've looked at this particular case. Was pretty well known it seemed.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrong

Originally posted by daddio

Originally posted by Wrong
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.





"Leave the law and its interpretation to the lawyers" is what has gotten us in so much dookie now. Any time you leave responsibility to someone else, you leave yourself to their mercy for abuse.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by greenovni
 


Great actions!! But you made one mistake.

As you enter the courtroom for your arraignment, do not state ANYTHING except that you would like a court reporter present if one is not present.
Do not admit your straw man name, hell, keep TOTALLY SILENT until a court reporter is present.
IT IS YOUR RIGHT!!!!

WAIT UNTIL a court reporter is present and THEN ask the JUDGE to tell you in what type of courtroom you are being charged.
This will go into public record and the last thing that the judges want is the populace to know that our courtrooms are courts of Admiralty Law, and if the entire exchange is on the court record then they are essentially putting themselves in a catch 22 by answering the question.
If they state that it is a courtroom of statutory law then they are in violation of the US Constitution. They are LYING!!!!
They will have no choice but to drop the case or admit that the courtroom is an Admiralty Courtroom.
If they give you any crap, then recite the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and then repeat to the judge the three types of courts that are allowable, by law, according to the US Constitution.

Common Law, Civil Law, and Admiralty Law.

But the key to this entire thing is that a court reporter MUST be present for this to go on the official record.

S & F!!!


Unfortunately this is a civil case being heard by a "hearing officer" instead of a judge. @ this time, I am trying to get it heard by a real judge.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Do some research at the law library; sounds like you could try fileing a pre-trail motion with the court for dismissal on the basis of your argument.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


You are absolutely correct. I read the post by the "officer of the court," who has apparently forgotten his Constitutional Oath. Make certain that you are "On the Record" as is stated by Josephus23, and do not ever admit that you are the ALL CAPS name on the court docket. I even have medical personnel change that on my medical records, and my driver's license is signed with "sui juris," UCC-207, my car registration "Under Duress." The Freeman thing does work, but you have better know your law, or they will get you. Remember, there are only two kinds of court, and two kinds of police officers. A cop is either a Peace Officer, or a Policy Enforcer. Ask one this, and take note of the facial expression they have when hearing it.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rastus3663
Do some research at the law library; sounds like you could try filing a pre-trail motion with the court for dismissal on the basis of your argument.


The only pre-trial motion that I think that might work is a motion for summary judgment.

This is based on prima fascia evidence, and is solely up to the judgment of well... the judge.

But you could take the angle that the courtroom that you are in does not have jurisdiction over the issue and if a court reporter is present, then there is a high likelihood that the judge will rule in your favor in order to keep the whole issue of courtroom jurisdiction out of the headlines.

For those who do not quite grasp what I am talking about here are a couple of links:

Link to a great explanation of admiralty law

Did you know that you are essentially under the jurisdiction of private international law? IN AMERICA!!!!!

INTERNATIONAL LAW!!!!

Here is a link that describes private international law, or admiralty law.
This type of law decides under which jurisdiction you are charged and the jurisdiction is decided by the flag in the courtroom.

This goes all the way back to the Roman Empire, hence, click on the link in my signature.

If the flag has gold fringe, then you are under maritime, private international law.
edit on 3/9/2011 by Josephus23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
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.


While you are at this, why not look up the Lawyer's Secret Oath to the British Crown? Every lawyer, every sitting judge, is in direct violation of the Constitution, and is a traitor to the American way of life. I would not give a lawyer the time of day, and judges do not deserve my respect either. Not too long ago I took on the local school corporation over the gold fringed flag. I forced them to change it, and then really went after them over the corporate/public conflict. They are in essence a corporation that takes taxpayer money to operate.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


It is sooooo refreshing to see someone else who truly understands the concept behind the straw man.

I personally think that a better approach to taking back our liberties would be to start a mass campaign informing everyone their rights as a juror.
More specifically jury nullification.

The entire game played in our admiralty courtrooms is all smoke and mirrors.
It is all based upon TPTB playing on our fears and our feelings of patriotism.

For instance, take the jury oath.

Why in the world does a jury take an oath?

They can vote however they wish regardless of the evidence and they are accountable to no one.

It's all a big scam to get us to believe in this make believe proxy government.

Here is a link to the John Zenger trial, which set the standard for jury nullification in the states.
I wish more people today had the cajones to stand up to the repressive foreign corporation masquerading as our COUNTRY in the District of Columbia.

Cheers mate. Glad to have you in the thread.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by greenovni
 



During my twelve years service as a Judge, I always insisted on the truth and placed justice above law and order. I could have prepared this article indicia of a research paper; however, people tend to lose interest when articles of this nature become too technical. Science has taught us that “For every action there is a positive reaction.” If your life on earth resembles a Matrix, it is because you’re seeing things for the first time, with eyes wide open, but you feel confused! That feeling of confusion is appropriate because the information you are now digesting, contradicts much of the information you have been spoon fed throughout your life! I named this paper after the movie “The Matrix” written by the Wachowski brothers. After reading this, watch the movie and you will notice many similarities.

Under our corporate governments, no Sovereign can lawfully be tried or convicted of any statutory crime. I recently discovered how to avoid prosecution under the Trust when a Sovereign is taken before a corporate prosecuting attorney or a judge:

First: “the Sovereign must inquire if we are on the record, and if not, insist upon it! Say nothing, sign nothing and answer no questions until you are convinced that the proceedings are being recorded!”

Secondly: all a Sovereign has to say for the record is: “I am a beneficiary of the Trust, and I am appointing you as my Trustee.”

Thirdly: the Sovereign then directs his Trustee to do his bidding! “As my Trustee, I want you to discharge this matter I am accused of and eliminate the record.”

Fourthly: if the Sovereign suffered any damages as a result of his arrest, he can direct that the Trust compensate him from the proceeds of the Court by saying; “I wish to be compensated for [X] dollars, in redemption.”

This statement is sufficient to remove the authority and jurisdiction from any prosecuting attorney or judge. The accused will be immediately released from custody with a check, license or claim he identifies as a damage. It doesn’t matter what the action involves or how it is classified by the corporate law as a civil or criminal action. It works every time! All of the Codes, Statutes and Regulations throughout the United States are a Will from the Masters to their Slaves. A Will is defined as, “An express command used in a dispositive nature.” When individuals in America are charged with a crime and warehoused in a jail, it is because they went against the Will of the Masters and not because they harmed another person. Remember that: The Will demands from us all that we are; keeps us in check; and promises us nothing!

www.rumormillnews.com...

Now whether you "believe" this or not, it IS true. What everyone is missing here, the point, is that ALL power of the government COMES or is DERIVED FROM the CONSENT of the governed. It is in the Declaration of Independence and many other documents such as State Constitutions. There are federal laws under 18 USC 241 and 242 and 28 USC 1746 and more. For those here WHO claim to have worked in federal law enforcement or went to "law school", that is a joke, I went to "law school" too and dropped out when I found out what a scam it is. They teach you corporate law NOT Natural Law which is what they should teach, but that does not make the cities any money does it? It is ALL about money. NO VICTIM NO CRIME!!! PERIOD!!

Does ANYONE here know or remember what a TORT is? When an officer/security guard stops you s/he is committing a Tort of Trespass, s/he has impeded your right of movement for nothing, unless you hit someone, ran someone over, took down a mailbox or tree or damaged property in some other way, THERE IS NO CRIME!!


"With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or
protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state policeauthority." --Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co.184 US 540

"The claim & exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
-- Miller vs. U.S., F486, 489


See, I could paste text all day long, the federal code and so on. American Jurisprudence is the greatest work of this country, but who has the time to read it? For those of you who want a better understanding of the "Law", then read Frederic Bastiat's book, "The Law" written in 1850 it still applies today!!

And once again, what is the BAR............. it is the British Accredited Registry, ALL lawyers are British agents and traitors to this country. WHY do we not arrest them for treason and subversion of our government, as most politicians ARE lawyers?



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


I was sent a jury notice once, I wrote back and told them i could not do it as i was not the corporate fiction on the letter. The corporate fiction could not respond as he has no soul.

I got a letter back saying that if I should change my mind in the future, to consider sitting on a jury and "serving" my country"!!! What a joke!!



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 

Stare decisis refers to case law "let the decision stand". It's been quite awhile since I've had any classes regarding the law. and I am not an attorney, and I don't give legal advice, but I seem to remember that common law only applies in the absence of a statute.





top topics
 
151
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join