rottweiler's supreme court original action at law

[indio007]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

The reason I posed the question to indio007 is because George Gordon mentioned in a radio archive of his that USA is a federal corporation and the US Constitution is its corporate charter.

Historically, the Constitution itself was inspired in part due to creditor-debtor issues and Shay's Rebellion as well as the issues of commerce between States.

"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain."

Padleford, Fay & Co. v. The Mayor, City of Savanna, 14 Ga 438.

At the end of the revolution, admiralty and law merchant where obviously still in existence but seemingly unenforceable on the individual foreign sovereign states.
The states either singularly or through the Articles of Confederation had no mechanism to enforce their rights under that particular jurisdiction of law. They had abandoned the King's Processes and Charters.

So in their wisdom they drew up a document for facilitating commerce between the states. If you notice that nearly every power grab by the US into a state's jurisdiction is done under the pretense of the commerce clause.

The Constitution is a commercial instrument, signed under the law of agency by individuals in a representative capacity.

They plagiarized some common law rights and merged them into the document so as to make it more palatable.

A man can lay claim to any document as the foundation of any claim of right including the Constitution. The claim of a right under a contract is naturally going to be processed under the jurisdiction that created that right.

Then there is the obvious. Common law does not have a document as it's foundation. The Magna Carta is a document with the King guaranteeing that he, his heirs, and his minions will defer to the common law and become subjects to it as well as respect the rights and remedies decreed by it.

Man's rights don't come from paper soldiers they are limited by them.

Claiming Constitutional rights as fact in court creates a presumption you are operating under the admiralty jurisdiction it creates. As we can see above in the quote, the state will not rebut the presumption until you try to enforce it on them....

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by indio007

Padleford, Fay & Co. v. The Mayor, City of Savanna, 14 Ga 438.

At the end of the revolution, admiralty and law merchant where obviously still in existence but seemingly unenforceable on the individual foreign sovereign states.
The states either singularly or through the Articles of Confederation had no mechanism to enforce their rights under that particular jurisdiction of law. They had abandoned the King's Processes and Charters.

So in their wisdom they drew up a document for facilitating commerce between the states. If you notice that nearly every power grab by the US into a state's jurisdiction is done under the pretense of the commerce clause.

The Constitution is a commercial instrument, signed under the law of agency by individuals in a representative capacity.

They plagiarized some common law rights and merged them into the document so as to make it more palatable.

A man can lay claim to any document as the foundation of any claim of right including the Constitution. The claim of a right under a contract is naturally going to be processed under the jurisdiction that created that right.

Then there is the obvious. Common law does not have a document as it's foundation. The Magna Carta is a document with the King guaranteeing that he, his heirs, and his minions will defer to the common law and become subjects to it as well as respect the rights and remedies decreed by it.

Man's rights don't come from paper soldiers they are limited by them.

Claiming Constitutional rights as fact in court creates a presumption you are operating under the admiralty jurisdiction it creates. As we can see above in the quote, the state will not rebut the presumption until you try to enforce it on them....

Indio: Am I correctly reading INTO your statements above the probable 'bottom line' CONCEPT that in order for any man to preserve his freedom, that he must also be willing to fight for that freedom?

Should I be correct in that arbitrary conceptualization, then would it not also be the right of each man to choose NOT to perform such a fight when the man knows that he is outnumbered a 300,000 to 1 (as here in Florida), and when he realizes that none of his companions in thought are going to give aid and assistance?

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[indio007]

Your Aid and Assistance is in the jury box, sitting in a common law court.

There is no judicial immunity when acting absent jurisdiction. The actors need to be held accountable via collateral attack in a Superior Court.

It's simple, prove jurisdiction to a common law jury by proof of facts and law.


Demand the State

Produce the binding instrument between the parties.
Prove the consideration or benefit received.
Prove the State is sovereign , with a competent fact witness with first hand personal knowledge that will aver my declaration of sovereignty.

No gov't official would dare declare sovereignty over one of the people in front of a jury and base their claim of right on it. That is treason.

[rottweiler]

"In discussing this question, the counsel for the State of Maryland have deemed it of some importance, in the construction of the Constitution, to consider that instrument not as emanating from the people, but as the act of sovereign and independent States. The powers of the General Government, it has been said, are delegated by the States, who alone are truly sovereign, and must be exercised in subordination to the States, who alone possess supreme dominion. Page 17 U. S. 403

It would be difficult to sustain this proposition. The convention which framed the Constitution was indeed elected by the State legislatures. But the instrument, when it came from their hands, was a mere proposal, without obligation or pretensions to it. It was reported to the then existing Congress of the United States with a request that it might "be submitted to a convention of delegates, chosen in each State by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification."

This mode of proceeding was adopted, and by the convention, by Congress, and by the State legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively and wisely, on such a subject -- by assembling in convention. It is true, they assembled in their several States -- and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the State governments.

From these conventions the Constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people; is "ordained and established" in the name of the people, and is declared to be ordained,"
McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 [1819].

Originally Posted by indio007

"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain."

Padleford, Fay & Co. v. The Mayor, City of Savanna, 14 Ga 438.



At the end of the revolution, admiralty and law merchant where obviously still in existence but seemingly unenforceable on the individual foreign sovereign states.
The states either singularly or through the Articles of Confederation had no mechanism to enforce their rights under that particular jurisdiction of law. They had abandoned the King's Processes and Charters.

So in their wisdom they drew up a document for facilitating commerce between the states. If you notice that nearly every power grab by the US into a state's jurisdiction is done under the pretense of the commerce clause.

The Constitution is a commercial instrument, signed under the law of agency by individuals in a representative capacity.

They plagiarized some common law rights and merged them into the document so as to make it more palatable.

A man can lay claim to any document as the foundation of any claim of right including the Constitution. The claim of a right under a contract is naturally going to be processed under the jurisdiction that created that right.

Then there is the obvious. Common law does not have a document as it's foundation. The Magna Carta is a document with the King guaranteeing that he, his heirs, and his minions will defer to the common law and become subjects to it as well as respect the rights and remedies decreed by it.

Man's rights don't come from paper soldiers they are limited by them.

Claiming Constitutional rights as fact in court creates a presumption you are operating under the admiralty jurisdiction it creates. As we can see above in the quote, the state will not rebut the presumption until you try to enforce it on them....

[rottweiler]

The Constitution emanated from the people and was not the act of sovereign and independent States.*1 The preamble contemplates the body of electors composing the states, the terms "people" and "citizens" being synonymous. Negroes, whether free or slaves, were not included in the term "people of the United States at that time.*2 *1 McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 [1819]. See also Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 470 [1793]; Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dall. 54, 93 [1795]; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 324 [1816]; Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 247 [1833]. *2 Scott v. Sandford, 19 How 393, 404 [1857].

The words "sovereign state" are cabalistic words, not understood by the disciple of liberty, who has been instructed in our constitutional schools. It is our appropriate phrase when aplied to an absolute despotism. The idea of sovereign power in the government of a republic is incompatible with the existence and foundation of civil liberty and the rights of property. Gaines v. Buford, 31 Ky. (1 Dana) 481, 501.

Government: Republican Government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 388

Originally Posted by indio007

"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain."

Padleford, Fay & Co. v. The Mayor, City of Savanna, 14 Ga 438.



At the end of the revolution, admiralty and law merchant where obviously still in existence but seemingly unenforceable on the individual foreign sovereign states.
The states either singularly or through the Articles of Confederation had no mechanism to enforce their rights under that particular jurisdiction of law. They had abandoned the King's Processes and Charters.

So in their wisdom they drew up a document for facilitating commerce between the states. If you notice that nearly every power grab by the US into a state's jurisdiction is done under the pretense of the commerce clause.

The Constitution is a commercial instrument, signed under the law of agency by individuals in a representative capacity.

They plagiarized some common law rights and merged them into the document so as to make it more palatable.

A man can lay claim to any document as the foundation of any claim of right including the Constitution. The claim of a right under a contract is naturally going to be processed under the jurisdiction that created that right.

Then there is the obvious. Common law does not have a document as it's foundation. The Magna Carta is a document with the King guaranteeing that he, his heirs, and his minions will defer to the common law and become subjects to it as well as respect the rights and remedies decreed by it.

Man's rights don't come from paper soldiers they are limited by them.

Claiming Constitutional rights as fact in court creates a presumption you are operating under the admiralty jurisdiction it creates. As we can see above in the quote, the state will not rebut the presumption until you try to enforce it on them....

[Jerry Pitts]

Here we go with that "common law" jury subject again. And again, I will stipulate, that when a black robe uses the police power to intimidate that jury and force that jury to act according to the black robes commands, then there is no common law jury, and below you will see where particular procedural violations occured, such as restricting the evidence and disallowing verbal objections during trial.
http://nancygrant.info/ng/documents/...n%20limine.doc
http://nancygrant.info/ng/documents/...2006_00000.pdf


Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

Originally Posted by indio007

Your Aid and Assistance is in the jury box, sitting in a common law court.

There is no judicial immunity when acting absent jurisdiction. The actors need to be held accountable via collateral attack in a Superior Court.

It's simple, prove jurisdiction to a common law jury by proof of facts and law.


Demand the State

Produce the binding instrument between the parties.
Prove the consideration or benefit received.
Prove the State is sovereign , with a competent fact witness with first hand personal knowledge that will aver my declaration of sovereignty.

No gov't official would dare declare sovereignty over one of the people in front of a jury and base their claim of right on it. That is treason.

[indio007]

I don't think any judge has the balls to imprison a jury.
I don't think jury intimidation is a likely scenario.
Then again , I've been wrong.....

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by indio007

I don't think any judge has the balls to imprison a jury.
I don't think jury intimidation is a likely scenario.
Then again , I've been wrong.....

Have you ever read the oath that jurors have to sign before they can sit on the jury? I believe a copy was recently published on either this forum or on the net. I will check to see if I can locate it again. At any rate, the jurors agree to follow the instructions given by the judge, and a failure to do so would 'subject' them to criminal penalties.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[indio007]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

Have you ever read the oath that jurors have to sign before they can sit on the jury? I believe a copy was recently published on either this forum or on the net. I will check to see if I can locate it again. At any rate, the jurors agree to follow the instructions given by the judge, and a failure to do so would 'subject' them to criminal penalties.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

What do you expect from a commercial court? They are even trawling for "new customers" out of the jury box.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by indio007

What do you expect from a commercial court? They are even trawling for "new customers" out of the jury box.

I especially don't want another debate started on the pro and con of 'common law' or of 'common law juries'. On the other hand, I realize and concur with the CONCEPT of common law and of common law juries. When faced with the reality of what is actually in that courtroom, is where the conflict begins. Common law and common law juries and courts of record are absolutely perfect in their concept, but that is an 'IDEAL' and we do not have the "IDEAL" scenario when we are forced to attend one of those meetings being conducted by perverted and twisted minds currently known as courts of justice operating under the rule of law.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.