Did you have a Jury of your Peers?

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

Are you saying that you have never been diagnosed with brain damage?

Define "brain damage". Have you ever been punched in the face? If yes, then you also suffered brain damage. Have you ever bumped your head during a fall? If yes, then you have suffered brain damage.

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

Are you saying that your brain damaged was not sever enough to make you quit/lose your job?

In regards to loosing a job, that occurred approximately 1 1/2 years prior to any incident involving a 'skull fracture'. The loss of a job was the result of Emphysema, so severe that I had to give up my Class A Cdl with Hazmat endorsement.

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

Are you sure I am making "unqualified claims"?

YES! Do you have medical records to substantiate your claims. If you do, then I know a good lawyer right here in town who would like to speak to you to find out how you got possession of what you might claim to be my medical records.

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

I think you are a liar.

Who gives a rats butt about what you think.. thinking and proving are two entirely different things.

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

I wonder if any state agencies would ever file suit against you if you ever claimed that you were not mentally insufficient to hold your job.

Can't answer that one, as I would never make such a claim, as it would be a false claim. OOOPS.. you have used a double negative in your question, therefore I retract my prior answer to the above question.

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

Are these claims unfounded Jerry?

Yes they are false claims, as you have not told any bit of the truth in regards to what was stated to you in a 'confidential' manner. Folks... do not trust Little Brother 192 (or any of his AKA identities to include Cody James Roberts) with any personal confidential information, as he will use that information in a twisted and perverted manner to work against you.

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

Maybe you answer honestly these questions?

Honestly answered... now how about you? Can you answer anything honestly without going off the deep end and attempting character assassination?

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[rottweiler]

I am sorry about the bad $hit that happened to you.

Ok, I define "peers" as the heirs of the sovereignty of the King that was acquired through the war for independence. I am claiming each and every one of the people are a peer. Together, they are the peerage in this country.

Is it your opinion that the people do not have a right to a trial by a jury of their peers? Yes or No

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

I will not buy into that unconscionable contract Rottweiller. You are asking that I either agree or disagree with a 'term' that is not fully defined. I am therefore refusing your offer for cause. When you give me that definition of how you intend to construe the term 'peers', then I will give consideration to your question.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

I am sorry about the bad $hit that happened to you.

Ok, I define "peers" as the heirs of the sovereignty of the King that was acquired through the war for independence. I am claiming each and every one of the people are a peer. Together, they are the peerage in this country.

Is it your opinion that the people do not have a right to a trial by a jury of their peers? Yes or No

With that qualified responsive answer in place, I can honestly say YES! Every American man and or woman have the right to a trial by a jury of "their" peers, not by the house of peers and its' membership.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[rottweiler]

Courts of Record

And the Common Law in State Constitutions and State Statutes

Last Updated on 04/02/2008

Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426
COMMON LAW ACTIONS are such as will lie, on the particular facts, at common law, without the aid of a statute. - Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition

COURT OF RECORD

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.

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.

“Inferior courts” are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not according to the course of the common law.” Ex Parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212; Smith v. Andrews, 6 Cal. 652

“The only inherent difference ordinarily recognized between superior and inferior courts is that there is a presumption in favor of the validity of the judgments of the former, none in favor of those of the latter, and that a superior court may be shown not to have had power to render a particular judgment by reference to its record. Ex parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212. Note, however, that in California ‘superior court’ is the name of a particular court. But when a court acts by virtue of a special statute conferring jurisdiction in a certain class of cases, it is a court of inferior or limited jurisdiction for the time being, no matter what its ordinary status may be. Heydenfeldt v. Superior Court, 117 Cal. 348, 49 Pac. 210; Cohen v. Barrett, 5 Cal. 195” 7 Cal. Jur. 579

“The judgment of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it." Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSION

Courts of Record must proceed according to the course of the common law, without the aid of a statute.

Courts which proceed according to statutory jurisdiction are inferior courts, and may be sued directly, without appealing.

Courts designated as courts of record may act as statutory courts unless the parties to a case object.

The "judge" has no discretion in a court of record, and can only do ministerial functions, such as signing your orders.

No judgment of a court of record can be appealed. There is no higher court.

The type of relief demanded by the plaintiff determines if the court will operate as a court of record or not, on a case by case basis.

There is no such thing as a "common law court." All courts of record can hear actions at (common) law.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All federal courts are courts of record. This includes United States Tax Court.

US. Code, TITLE 28 > PART I > CHAPTER 5 > § 132. Creation and composition of district courts

(a) There shall be in each judicial district a district court which shall be a court of record known as the United States District Court for the district.

U.S. Code, TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 76 > Subchapter C > PART I > § 7441 Status.

There is hereby established, under article I of the Constitution of the United States, a court of record to be known as the United States Tax Court. The members of the Tax Court shall be the chief judge and the judges of the Tax Court.
http://www.obstacledelusions.com/courts_of_record.htm

[Jerry Pitts]

Interesting dissertation. The most striking thing that jumps up in my face is the fact that 'common law' is mentioned throughout. It is also pointed out that Courts of Record are Final (not subject to appeal), therefore, any case that has ever been 'appealed' is not a court of record. Which would bring into focus the percentile rating that you earlier mentioned. Now, here is the question, Common Law is construed to be the law established and 'recorded' and known as 'case law', but if the case at any point was appealed, then its' origin was not in the Common law. So What REALLY is Common Law?

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

Originally Posted by rottweiler

Courts of Record

And the Common Law in State Constitutions and State Statutes

Last Updated on 04/02/2008

Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426
COMMON LAW ACTIONS are such as will lie, on the particular facts, at common law, without the aid of a statute. - Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition

COURT OF RECORD

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.

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.

“Inferior courts” are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not according to the course of the common law.” Ex Parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212; Smith v. Andrews, 6 Cal. 652

“The only inherent difference ordinarily recognized between superior and inferior courts is that there is a presumption in favor of the validity of the judgments of the former, none in favor of those of the latter, and that a superior court may be shown not to have had power to render a particular judgment by reference to its record. Ex parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212. Note, however, that in California ‘superior court’ is the name of a particular court. But when a court acts by virtue of a special statute conferring jurisdiction in a certain class of cases, it is a court of inferior or limited jurisdiction for the time being, no matter what its ordinary status may be. Heydenfeldt v. Superior Court, 117 Cal. 348, 49 Pac. 210; Cohen v. Barrett, 5 Cal. 195” 7 Cal. Jur. 579

“The judgment of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it." Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSION

Courts of Record must proceed according to the course of the common law, without the aid of a statute.

Courts which proceed according to statutory jurisdiction are inferior courts, and may be sued directly, without appealing.

Courts designated as courts of record may act as statutory courts unless the parties to a case object.

The "judge" has no discretion in a court of record, and can only do ministerial functions, such as signing your orders.

No judgment of a court of record can be appealed. There is no higher court.

The type of relief demanded by the plaintiff determines if the court will operate as a court of record or not, on a case by case basis.

There is no such thing as a "common law court." All courts of record can hear actions at (common) law.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All federal courts are courts of record. This includes United States Tax Court.

US. Code, TITLE 28 > PART I > CHAPTER 5 > § 132. Creation and composition of district courts

(a) There shall be in each judicial district a district court which shall be a court of record known as the United States District Court for the district.

U.S. Code, TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 76 > Subchapter C > PART I > § 7441 Status.

There is hereby established, under article I of the Constitution of the United States, a court of record to be known as the United States Tax Court. The members of the Tax Court shall be the chief judge and the judges of the Tax Court.
http://www.obstacledelusions.com/courts_of_record.htm

[rottweiler]

Off the top of my head I would say common law is what the people say it is. Supposedly the common law was mixed with equity in 1938 so it is difficult to determine which statutes are law and which ones are equity. That is where the peers come in. The only people who get a trial by jury of their peers is people, not persons and not citizens. If the jury of peers are 100% sold on it then it is law.

What is really cool is the sovereign of the court can decree the law. So when government takes on one of the people and that people knows what he is doing the government better produce an injured party.

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

Interesting dissertation. The most striking thing that jumps up in my face is the fact that 'common law' is mentioned throughout. It is also pointed out that Courts of Record are Final (not subject to appeal), therefore, any case that has ever been 'appealed' is not a court of record. Which would bring into focus the percentile rating that you earlier mentioned. Now, here is the question, Common Law is construed to be the law established and 'recorded' and known as 'case law', but if the case at any point was appealed, then its' origin was not in the Common law. So What REALLY is Common Law?

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

Off the top of my head I would say common law is what the people say it is. Supposedly the common law was mixed with equity in 1938 so it is difficult to determine which statutes are law and which ones are equity. That is where the peers come in. The only people who get a trial by jury of their peers is people, not persons and not citizens. If the jury of peers are 100% sold on it then it is law.

What is really cool is the sovereign of the court can decree the law. So when government takes on one of the people and that people knows what he is doing the government better produce an injured party.

Don't know about you, but I am heading on another fishing trip. I am going back (intellectually speaking) to the time when the Magna Charta was signed, study that document again and find out from those involved in the signing, what was meant by 'common law'. They started the common law, so if anyone knows what common law is, they should know.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[rottweiler]

I just received http://www.1215.org/seminar/denniswhipple.htm today
and they threw in the April 28th, 2008 seminar. I feel like this material is a must have especially for the price of a tank of gasoline.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

I just received http://www.1215.org/seminar/denniswhipple.htm today
and they threw in the April 28th, 2008 seminar. I feel like this material is a must have especially for the price of a tank of gasoline.

More Pay-triot material up for sale. Come one, come all, special advertisement today. Without the purchase of this material, one can never be FREE.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[rottweiler]

When one of the people go to court it is their court and that court does not have to proceed by statute with a judge in charge. By right you can take over. It is as if the King himself is in court.

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.

Do you have any idea what that means? It means that when the plaintiff is in the status of the people and if he so wishes it is that man's court and he is the tribunal. How can you lose?

I am getting enough training in law and courtroom procedure from Thorton to defeat 98% of the Esquires.

That doesn't mean a robber with a gun can't steal from me but it means I can win straight up in court. $60? I already listened for free to 24 hours of recording. Do you believe that conference room was free? How about the website?

I am giving Thorton my recommendation on this site. It would appear your opinion of me is $hit by your response.

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

More Pay-triot material up for sale. Come one, come all, special advertisement today. Without the purchase of this material, one can never be FREE.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.