Legislation from the bench is common law?

[rottweiler]

When lawdog says common law is judge made law he is partially correct.

Case law does apply to attornies and citizens, so does statutes and codes. None of it applies to the people.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

When lawdog says common law is judge made law he is partially correct.

Case law does apply to attornies and citizens, so does statutes and codes. None of it applies to the people.

None of it applies to people who know how to assert their soveriegnty and common law rights.. ;-)

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Ecclesiastes

I don't know what you mean by "the above link," and I'm not familiar with the laws of Arkansas, Colorado, and Illinois, but the statutes of Pennsylvania state that "The common law and such of the statutes of England as were in force in the Province of Pennsylvania on May 14, 1776 and which were properly adapted to the circumstances of the inhabitants of this Commonwealth shall be deemed to have been in force in this Commonwealth from and after February 10, 1777." 1 Pa. C.S. section 1503(a).

The date "1776" has some historical significance, I think.

Most states of the United States "received" the English common law as of a date on or near the date of American independence. One notable exception is Louisiana, which has followed the French civil law tradition instead of the English common law tradition.

I was referring to this link:

http://www.obstacledelusions.com/courts_of_record.htm

Yes, the date 1776 has some obvious significance.

But as you can see, some states (like the ones I cited) choose to go off 1606, or the 4th year of King James I.

This date is far less obvious to me.

More especially since the states involved (Illinois, Arkansas, Colorado) weren't even English colonies at that point, or lands that were even under the dominion of the English.

Was wondering if anyone knew the significance of the 1606 date..

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

Is this factual enough?

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.

You still miss the point of what I was pointing to, and the scenario has not been altered by your presentation of a definition of 'court of record'. You had previously stated "If a court of record is proceeding according to the common law then the tribunal is independent of the magistrate. That means the judge is not the sovereign of the court. Correct? Then who is? That would be the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the king. He decrees the law."

You did not state that the court IS operating as described above, therefore, your claim is reduced to theory. I am saying that these courts do NOT operate according to the 'common law'. If the courts operate in any manner that removes from the people, any and all form or similitude of justice, then the will of the people is being thwarted.

I thoroughly recognize what you are saying, and I concur with you on the theory. HOWEVER, when the courts rig the jury, when the courts plainly tell you that such and such clause of the constitution will not be discussed in this court, and the courts have the force of arms right there in the court room to further usurp your authority, then WHAT PRAY TELL are you going to do. Open your mouth again and you will go to jail. Are your friends and neighbors sitting in the courtroom going to demand your immediate release? Are they going to tell the judge to step down from the bench? Are they going to do anything other than watch the judge walk over you like an elephant stepping on a piss-ant.

Like I have been saying for the past year. If you don't have the means of physical enforcement of your theoretical law, then you might as well be doing nothing more than breaking wind against a hurricane. Yeah. the Plaintiff is the King... you admitted and therefore, you further emphasize my point. If the king has spoken, his minions are going to respond to his commands.... NOT yours. Why? Because the henchmen are on his list of loyal subjects... YOU on the other hand are just a rebellious peasant with no armament at all.

I am still waiting for the transcript of any case where your alleged theory of making the law, when you are classified as the defendant, has ever been proven successful. You cannot show such a case file (at least not since 1938).

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by psholtz

It appears that many states (Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, just to name a few, by looking at the above link) seem to have adopted the "common law" of England, as it existed in the "fourth year of James I" (or, apparently, March 24, 1606).

What is it about this date?

What's the significance?

Is it maybe March 24, 1603?

On 24 March 1603, as James I, he succeeded the last Tudor monarch of England and Ireland, Elizabeth I, who died without issue.

.


He then ruled England, Scotland and Ireland for 22 years, until his death at the age of 58.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_I...nd#cite_note-2

“Stuart, King James, clothworker. The first of the Stuart line of the kings of England, was born in Edinburgh Castle, June 19, 1566; succeeded his mother, Mary Queen of Scots, as King of Scotland, July 24, 1567, and was crowned at Stirling, July 29. Married Anne of Denmark, November 24, 1589; endeavored to restore peace in Europe in 1590; proclaimed King of England on the death of Queen Elizabeth, March 24, 1590...granted first charter to the Va. companies, April 10, 1606; articles, orders, etc., for the Va. colonies, November 20, 1606; an ordinance and constitution, etc., for said colonies, March 9, 1607;
http://www.she-philosopher.com/ib/bios/jamesI.html

James I: Volume 19
March, 1606

Sponsor: The National Archives
Publication: Calendar of State Papers Domestic: James I, 1603-1610
Author: Mary Anne Everett Green (editor)
Year published: 1857

March 24. Examination of Anne, widow of Fras. Tresham. Her husband dictated the declaration to Salisbury sent by her to Sir Walter Cope, without instigation of any person, and Wm. Vavasour wrote it. [Ibid., No. 209.]

March 24. Sir Edw. Coke to Salisbury. Particulars of the two preceding examinations. Tresham has acted upon his book of equivocation, by affirming "manifest falshoods, in articulo mortis." Gladdis, Mr. Abington's man, has confessed the plot by which his master was to have excused himself. [Ibid., No. 208.] Incloses,
I. Declaration by Fras. Tresham to the Lords Commissioners, retracting his former confession that Walley (Garnet) had any connection with the Spanish negotiation; and declaring that he knew not that he had any, nor had he seen nor heard from him for 16 years. Dec. 22. [Ibid., No. 210.]
I.
Anne Tresham to Sir Walter Cope. Requests him to deliver the above declaration to Salisbury. [Ibid., No. 211.]

March ? 72. List of relics, church stuff, &c. belonging to Mrs. Brookesby and Mrs. Anne [Vaux.]

March 24. Examination of Anne Vaux. Francis Tresham, her cousin, often visited her and Garnet at White Webbs, Erith, Wandsworth, &c., when Garnet would counsel him to be patient and quiet.

They also visited Tresham at his house in Warwickshire. Subscribed as true, by Garnet. [G. Plot Bk., No. 212.]

March 24. Copy of the above. [Ibid., No. 213.]

March 24.
Serjeants' Inn. 73. Chief Justice Popham to Salisbury. A packet of letters, some in cipher, found 3 weeks before on the plains near Winchester, has been sent to him, which he forwards, lest they may be of moment.

March 24.
Serjeants' Inn. 74. Chief Justice Popham to Salisbury. The man who was expected is missed. Matthew's boat must be looked for. Has imprisoned Hickmote. Incloses,

74. I. Examination of John Jacob, mariner. He brought Anthony Hickmote from Calais; would have brought another Englishman described, but the man would not come with him, because he talked with Captain Turner, who was known at Calais to be a spy of the English Government.

March 24.
Tavistock. 75. Earl of Bath to the Same. Thanks for informing him of the Bill preferred against him in the House by one Bushton, whose drift is to transport timber through the Earl's lands.

March 24 ? 76. Notes relative to an Act for carrying timber down the river Towe to Barnstaple.

March 24 ? 77. Objections against the above Bill, as profitless to any but the patentee, and opposed by the Earls of Bath and Bedford.
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/rep...x?compid=15004

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

In my previous post I have shown how the government acts as sovereign and decrees the law for failure to file income tax. How in the hell is that case law Jerry Pitts?

Did I say anything about 'case law' in my previous statement? NO. I spoke primarilly in regard to your use of the term "IF".. IF establishes a hypothetical situation. NOT IN FACT.

Originally Posted by rottweiler

They could of said the defendent is required to wear pink underwear and I don't see how that can be construed as case law. That is just law in their court.

As far as blending law and equity, whose law and equity are they blending? Their law and equity only applies to the people who decide to be subject to it, if they want to blend it, blend away. Since they are not my sovereign it is not law to me. It is their opinion. 99% of their cases don't mean diddly squat to me.

Make sure the next time you are in front of one of those judges, that you tell him/her that their laws mean "diddly squat" to you... Have a nice stay in the cross bar hotel.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[rottweiler]

1606 was the founding of America.

Originally Posted by psholtz

I was referring to this link:

http://www.obstacledelusions.com/courts_of_record.htm

Yes, the date 1776 has some obvious significance.

But as you can see, some states (like the ones I cited) choose to go off 1606, or the 4th year of King James I.

This date is far less obvious to me.

More especially since the states involved (Illinois, Arkansas, Colorado) weren't even English colonies at that point, or lands that were even under the dominion of the English.

Was wondering if anyone knew the significance of the 1606 date..

[rottweiler]

Then we agree that the common law of the people has very little to do with case law.

Then we are even. You took what I said out of context three times and I took you out of context once.

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

Did I say anything about 'case law' in my previous statement? NO. I spoke primarilly in regard to your use of the term "IF".. IF establishes a hypothetical situation. NOT IN FACT.




Make sure the next time you are in front of one of those judges, that you tell him/her that their laws mean "diddly squat" to you... Have a nice stay in the cross bar hotel.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[rottweiler]

And I told you it is not a theory. I was trying to build a chain of logic for you to understand. However this whole thing about all of us being sovereign and owning the joint seems to be foreign to you.

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

You still miss the point of what I was pointing to, and the scenario has not been altered by your presentation of a definition of 'court of record'. You had previously stated "If a court of record is proceeding according to the common law then the tribunal is independent of the magistrate. That means the judge is not the sovereign of the court. Correct? Then who is? That would be the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the king. He decrees the law."

You did not state that the court IS operating as described above, therefore, your claim is reduced to theory. I am saying that these courts do NOT operate according to the 'common law'. If the courts operate in any manner that removes from the people, any and all form or similitude of justice, then the will of the people is being thwarted.

I thoroughly recognize what you are saying, and I concur with you on the theory. HOWEVER, when the courts rig the jury, when the courts plainly tell you that such and such clause of the constitution will not be discussed in this court, and the courts have the force of arms right there in the court room to further usurp your authority, then WHAT PRAY TELL are you going to do. Open your mouth again and you will go to jail. Are your friends and neighbors sitting in the courtroom going to demand your immediate release? Are they going to tell the judge to step down from the bench? Are they going to do anything other than watch the judge walk over you like an elephant stepping on a piss-ant.

Like I have been saying for the past year. If you don't have the means of physical enforcement of your theoretical law, then you might as well be doing nothing more than breaking wind against a hurricane. Yeah. the Plaintiff is the King... you admitted and therefore, you further emphasize my point. If the king has spoken, his minions are going to respond to his commands.... NOT yours. Why? Because the henchmen are on his list of loyal subjects... YOU on the other hand are just a rebellious peasant with no armament at all.

I am still waiting for the transcript of any case where your alleged theory of making the law, when you are classified as the defendant, has ever been proven successful. You cannot show such a case file (at least not since 1938).

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[David Merrill]

Rott is filling up large posts again with quotes and insisting people agree.

I am going back to my point that Lawdog is right - from the quotes I read at the beginning - he is on my Ignore List. Common law is indeed judge-made law; through case law and opinions. Equity and law were basically blended in 1938 with Erie Doctrine. That means that you have hired the attorney in the black robe to be equitable and at the same time you get to state in a hearing, "Well under the same circumstances, wise judge so-and-so said that I win because..." - and you can expect that arbiter to consider your argument, as well as your opposition resorting to opinions and rulings of note.

Somebody brought up 1966 and that was during an interesting transition of standing in the courts. It is his initial formation of the book around the OCC that should be catching your attention - should you enjoy how signing off with our true names is catching on around Suijuris anyway. This has to do with the remedy in the 1913 Fed Act - redeeming gold - later lawful money in US dollars as inelastic currency - admitted by Bernard Shoonra to be US notes, still "circulated" as US notes between the big Fed banks and admitted by the Treasury to be circulated among us smaller reserves (with FRNs in our wallets) in the form of FRNs since January 21, 1971.

What is it that removes us back to our original jurisdiction. Look at that fourth image on Page 22.

My sticky note on there is basically a summary of the thrust of Vining's entire book. If you read a paragraph or two of his more "technical" discourse, his book is packed to say the least. But that is something important I got out of it.

The Libel of Review makes no sense to the "judges" these days because they are all municipal magistrates of the District of Columbia - the city of Washington incorporated in 1871. Fine. It gets dismissed and the suitor retains the "exclusive original cognizance" of the 'saving to suitors' clause of 1789. Noting especially that 1789 is well before 1842's Swift v. Tyson and as brought up, attorneys are taught that all case law before 1938 is voluntary, not mandatory judicial notice. They are not taught that by Chief Justice Brandeis' rulings in Erie that was actually all case law between 1842 and 1938 that was rendered faulty.

Not that this mattered by 1966 or so.

The point I make here is simply that by entering into the court in the true name, without title, a man or woman, all the court could take cognizance of by way of standing is a class action suit for all humanity - and that makes no sense for several reasons. For one, the arbiter gets pulled into a conflict of interest as a man or woman.



Regards,

David Merrill.