They IRS opens a court of record. In the accusatory papers the sovereign accuser decrees the law: "Defendant is required to file." Right there, believe it or not, is the sovereign decree that creates the law in accordance with the rules of the common law.
Defendants are famous for demanding that the law be shown to them. The "law" is contained in the accusatory papers, decreed by the sovereign plaintiff.
The defendants do not recognize the law when they are looking straight at it. Because defendants don't see it, their entire strategy is not relevant to the accusation.
Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426 COURT. ...
INTERNATIONAL LAW
The person and suite of the sovereign; the place where the
sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be.
....
CLASSIFICATION
Courts may be classified and divided according to several
methods, the following being the more usual:
COURTS OF RECORD and COURTS NOT OF RECORD. The former being
those whose acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or
recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony, and which have
power to fine or imprison for contempt. Error lies to their
judgments, and they generally possess a seal. Courts not of
record are those of inferior dignity, which have no power to fine
or imprison, and in which the proceedings are not enrolled or
recorded. 3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas
Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225;
Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v.
Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.
A "court of record" is a judicial tribunal having attributes
and exercising functions independently of the person of the
magistrate designated generally to hold it, and proceeding
according to the course of common law, its acts and proceedings
being enrolled for a perpetual memorial. Jones v. Jones, 188
Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass.,
171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y.
406, 155 N.E. 688, 689.
It is in the counterclaim that the legitimacy of the plaintiff's sovereignty may and should be challenged, because no government entity in the USA has sovereignty. The defendant becomes the sovereign counterplaintiff, and the plaintiff becomes the questionable counterdefendant. Because no sovereign can legislate against any other sovereign, it follows that the counterdefendant has no legitimate authority to decree any law applicable to the counterplaintiff.
http://www.1215.org/schulz.htm
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts
Indeed, this is getting interesting.
Under the strict definition of 'privilege' or the latin version "privus" being that of "one's own, individual", would have some really strong implications.
1: When referring to the 'privilege' of driving, it would also carry the requirement that each and every man and woman who are driving would have to be mentioned in the written law, in order for the man or woman to be affected by the execution of that law.
2: Presuming that they would argue that each and every man and woman are mentioned in the law via the term(s) Individual, person, entity, (all abstract terms), they would have to 'prove' that the man or woman who are not mentioned in the law, are in fact 'labeled' as some other form of fictitious being. Placing a false label upon a man or woman is not a cool thing to do.
Just a couple of thoughts.
Jerry Carlos
|