No Common Law Courts in Minn - CL Venue/Library Down

[Smart-Aleck]

I was reading up on the 'Cancellatura' thread, and it seems there was a lot of talk about having to go before one of the few Common Law courts to be 'approved'. I wanted to do some more research so I tryed to pull up www.commonlawvenue.com and www.commonlawlibrary.com, but they were both down. I did a search on google to see if I could find any cached versions, and could only get the main page on CLL. I did notice another interesting result on my google search though, it seems to be a letter from Minnesota Attorney General Hubert H. Humphrey III discussing the validity of Common Law courts. I'm guessing it most likely pertains to courts not "setup" by the gov't but probably to a "private" court. Here is an excerpt though:



"Common law" courts lack lawful authority. The only state judicial authority in Minnesota is the authority vested in courts by Article VI of the Minnesota Constitution. Article VI vests the state's judicial power in a supreme court, a court of appeals if established by the legislature, a district court and such other courts that may be established by the legislature. Minn. Const. art. VI, § 1. There is no provision for a "superior county court" with "common law venue" in the Minnesota Constitution, and the Minnesota Legislature has not created a "common law" court. Furthermore, the only recognized federal judicial authority is the judicial power created by Article III of the United States Constitution. U.S. Const. art. III, § 1. Article III vests the judicial power of the United States in a supreme court and any inferior courts Congress may establish. There is no federal "common law court" created by the United States Constitution or by Congress.



Link here.

[idknow]

i've been wondering lately after having observed a list of constitutions and their last dates of "acceptance" that a few years prior and following 1938 were all pivotal!

so, anything passed since would be, to my thought highly suspect in regard to being The People's Constitution!

just a thought.

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by Smart-Aleck

I was reading up on the 'Cancellatura' thread, and it seems there was a lot of talk about having to go before one of the few Common Law courts to be 'approved'. I wanted to do some more research so I tryed to pull up www.commonlawvenue.com and www.commonlawlibrary.com, but they were both down. I did a search on google to see if I could find any cached versions, and could only get the main page on CLL. I did notice another interesting result on my google search though, it seems to be a letter from Minnesota Attorney General Hubert H. Humphrey III discussing the validity of Common Law courts. I'm guessing it most likely pertains to courts not "setup" by the gov't but probably to a "private" court. Here is an excerpt though:



"Common law" courts lack lawful authority. The only state judicial authority in Minnesota is the authority vested in courts by Article VI of the Minnesota Constitution. Article VI vests the state's judicial power in a supreme court, a court of appeals if established by the legislature, a district court and such other courts that may be established by the legislature. Minn. Const. art. VI, § 1. There is no provision for a "superior county court" with "common law venue" in the Minnesota Constitution, and the Minnesota Legislature has not created a "common law" court. Furthermore, the only recognized federal judicial authority is the judicial power created by Article III of the United States Constitution. U.S. Const. art. III, § 1. Article III vests the judicial power of the United States in a supreme court and any inferior courts Congress may establish. There is no federal "common law court" created by the United States Constitution or by Congress.



Link here.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Be careful how you hear. Read the opinion letter very carefully. Somewhere it says "Minnesota state Republic" {look at it very carefully}. Does it say anything about "Minnessota state" or "Minnessota republic" or "Minnesota commonwealth" or anything about "Texas state" or "Texas commonwealth" or "Texas land" or "Texas republic". Or does it mention "Republic of Texas" or "Minnesota Rebublic".

And indeed while a State may have limited authority its creator does not necessarily have the same limitations.

The 'approval' is likely more of a matter of getting the signatures of twelve Justices' pursuant certain rules or customs. Maybe write the attorney general and ask him what "in Minnesota" means.

Starting in 1990 I went on the air in Minn and started a media war with all of the major media. I broadcast alot of the Info being discussed on this forum.
After Waco tragedy I issued a Call to arms and re instituted the Minnesota Militia Publiclly on the air..Needless to say this started a flurry of attacks on me from all sorts of Govt types.As far as I know there was a common law court convened in 1995 held at the state capitol in one of the session rooms
a petion de droit was entered into the record. I have been on every major media outlet in Minnesota and treated as the whipping boy of the patriot militia movement in Minnesota..After we upset the election of Skippy Humphrey the powers that be kidnapped my kids at gun point and told me to shut up,The next step was for them to try to assasinate me.So I left the state before it became a war of snipers...Yes I am serious NO Baloney
this really happened and is on the record....The good part is the Humphrey so******ts will never ever be the same...
http://www.minnesotamilitia.8k.com

[aksis]

Originally Posted by Smart-Aleck

I was reading up on the 'Cancellatura' thread, and it seems there was a lot of talk about having to go before one of the few Common Law courts to be 'approved'. I wanted to do some more research so I tryed to pull up www.commonlawvenue.com and www.commonlawlibrary.com, but they were both down.

It's back up! It has been up every time I have ever visited over the years.

Originally Posted by Hubert H. Humphrey III, Esquire

... a letter from Minnesota Attorney General Hubert H. Humphrey III discussing the validity of Common Law courts... Here is an excerpt:

"Common law" courts lack lawful authority.

A suit at common law most definatly has lawful authority.

A suit at common law before a court composed of People seated in their inherent soveregin capacity as Justices (a Jury of ones peers),

Called to order by one of the People to hear their suit, and who has made an affidavit of the offence, affirmed, signed and sealed under the penalty of purjury,

And People pledged to enforce the will of We the People... is the very root of lawful authority.

A court of the People, by the People, for the People is the equlivelent of the "Kings/Queens Bench" in the common law of England.

And, where the value in contraversy is 20.00 Dollars or more, the Right to a trial by a Jury of ones peers shall be preserved,

and no fact tried by a Jury, shall otherwise be retried in any court of the United States, other then according to the rules of the common law.

The only state judicial authority in Minnesota is the authority vested in courts by Article VI of the Minnesota Constitution.

This is not a matter of the State, it is the inherent Power of the People being weilded by the People.

Article VI vests the state's judicial power in a supreme court, a court of appeals if established by the legislature, a district court and such other courts that may be established by the legislature. Minn. Const. art. VI, § 1.

Most Americans did delegate a portion of their judicial Duties, via the constitution, to People willingly serving and who are being paied to serve, as public servents.

There is no provision for a "superior county court" with "common law venue" in the Minnesota Constitution, and the Minnesota Legislature has not created a "common law" court.

The People can call their court what ever they like and the common Law venue is of the State of Nature, and it is what allows the 'Minnesota Constitution' and the 'Minnesota Legislature' to even exist in the first place.

A common Law court is a creature of the common Law, not a State which is a creation of the workings of this Law.

Furthermore, the only recognized federal judicial authority is the judicial power created by Article III of the United States Constitution.

We are not talking about "federal judicial authority", we are talking about the inherent judicial power of every single human being and some of their inherent Rights, Powers, and Duties.

A limited portion, of the unlimited judicial Rights, Powers, and Duties that are inherent in the People, is delegated by the People via Article III to public offices, yet the People have reserved the "Kings Bench" power of the English common law to themselves, and this Right, Power, and Duty to try a suit at common law before a jury of our peers, falles upon us all should we be called upon by one of the People, or call upon the People, to do our Duty, and hear a suit at common law.

Also, it would be a mistake to recognize the courts of the People & suits at common law and the People's inherent judicial power, and authority, as being or needing "federal" anything. Obviously it is the "federal judicial authority" that is dependent upon the inherent judicial power and authority of the People, for its existance.

"courts of the United States" and civil/criminal suits... they are not the same as suits at common law. Common law courts are recognized in the Bill of Rights... you can not try a suit at common law without one.

There is no federal "common law court" created by the United States Constitution or by Congress.

This is because it is a court of common law, not a Constitution.

It is the very power inherent in all People that created the Constitutions and States, and, to deny it exists in the People... is to deny it exsists in the States and their Offices and agencies (like the Attorney General), as no portion of power or duity could have been delegated if it didn't exist... so ultimatly, this esquires opinion and prespective voids itself. TO deny the People have the Power is to deny the state could have such power.