Judicature Reformation Movement Part 1 of 5

Suitor mentioned the possibility of
setting up Common Law Courts.

If there is interest, I have drawn up
a format on which to set up
an independent Common Law Court System,
that I drew up when I had people
asking me to speak on Common Law.

I am a proponent of peoples rights and I think
that starting a Common Law action outside
of stranglehold of the current system may well be
one of the best ways to effect desirable change.

Legal Student


I have heard that such juries can be recognized res judicata in state court. I am not an advocate myself.

If you have a format in treatise form, let's hear it.

I suggest you start a new Topic Thread…


Regards,

David Merrill.


After having received interest and the suggestion that I start a new thread
I propose the new thread be titled:

Judicature Reformation Movement

I have tailored my format to be Utah specific. Though the concepts are easily adaptable to ones own state, province or territory. The other thing is this is a structure and concept t[size=1]hat can and probably will take on a life of its
own after it is birthed. The following document is the given format for the UJRM.





Utah Judicature Reformation Movement

_______________________________________________

The Judicature movement is meant to function as an organized political community and energy in the nation, state, county and city for the establishment or restoration of the Constitutional Republic and Rights of Free Men. The purpose of The Utah Judicature reformation movement is to reestablish a de jure government of the Utah Republic and the united States through county/state based houses of delegates duly elected by Electors who desire a restoration of lawful government. Due to the loss of the American Union prior to the war of northern aggression (Civil War), when the southern states walked out of Congress, resulting in a "sine die" situation, a de facto government was created after hostilities ceased. The states of the earlier union became franchisees of that de facto national government known as the "United States". Today the result is a government of lawlessness, enforcing "code" through arbitrary and capricious means, by way of military procedure at the direction of the commander-in-chief. That "code", created by "executive orders" and a militarily conscripted "Congress" [voted in by the franchised people of the franchised state], is then delegated for enforcement by the various "branches" of "government" ["departments" prior to the Civil War]. These administrative agencies are thus operating outside of true positive law and are simply code enforcement services. For these and many other reasons, it is essential for concerned Citizens in Utah to properly reassert their unalienable rights, by taking unified action by becoming involved with the Utah Judicature Reformation Movement or other suitable effort and organize at a city/county/state level in order to return to the Law that ensures America will remain a great, and prosperous nation.

ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION

I. The Judicature reformation movement is the ultimate civil authority of the county and wields the same power as the county board of supervisors, and much more. The Judicature reformation movement is an organization, based on the enlightened principals of common law and Constitution both State and national. The Judicature movement is comprised of two parts; first is organizing the force of the county Grand Jury in a de jure venue and jurisdiction to regulate the actions of our de facto government; second, the Judicature movement maintains an Assize Court in order to address those issues that the corporate united States and Utah Courts are unable to fairly address due to a breach of confidence demonstrated in an obvious conflict of interest and collusion of the mandated court officers in offering their first allegiance to the court and monetary interests above both constitutional monetary obligations and mandated common law rights. The Judicature movement is formed as an alternate civil authority or body politic to secure lawful rights, freedoms that are singularly reserved to the people under common law.

II. The Militia in relation to these matters shall be subordinate to the civil authority as per Article I, Section 20 of the Constitution of Utah, 1897. The Judicature movement extends the civil protection to the Militia, and the Militia extends physical protection to following the precedence of the reestablishment of common law rights and the proper establishment of Grand Assize/Grand Jury Courts for the securing of the same, to include the recording and civil recognition of Common Law Judgments rendered by the same. Until otherwise provided for in a manner to secure our sacred rights the Militia Members or other duly sworn public members may be utilized for the process of forming a duly constituted Grand Jury and the Assize Court.

[color=RoyalBlue]

III. The Assize Court can hear issues brought to it by various methods. The petitioners request the Judicature movement to be heard on their matter, and enter it upon the record. When this is done, the petitioners are requested to sign a binding arbitration agreement to abide by the decision of the Assize Court, as per Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution of the united States of America. After this is done, the petitioners file briefs with the Assize Court. The Assize Court proceeds to adduce the evidence and render a judgment based upon their findings. The process should take less than two [2] weeks.

IV. The Grand Jury is a free and independent body that adduces it's own evidence and delivers their findings to be recorded in the public record. If the Grand Jury findings need process of service, the normally recognized process of service officers, i.e. the sheriff, registered mail, or other personal deliver of said summons upon a sworn declaration that said declaration and or summons was properly delivered.


Vigilance is required in order to bring forward an effective effort to effect true and sensible change and bring the present defacto institutions into alignment with their own constitutions and contractual obligations to the people. In order to establish or a de jure, legitimate governing body on both the state and federal levels.


Notes in Summary of Proposed Actions Pertaining to the above resolutions:

It is my conclusion after having studied the defects in the U.S. Federal Constitution, specifically the 14th and 16th amendments as well as the Jay Treaty and Utah’s State Constitution that any actions taken to assert ones Sovereign Rights under the color of these legal instruments is doomed to failure; because all of these documents were the production of bodies divided amongst themselves and hence conquered from the outset – not Sovereign – only having the appearance thereof –
(See: http://www.angelfire.com/la/lawgiver/14thAm.html )

In order to obtain justice as a Sovereign it may require the establishments of independent common law courts, as the way things presently stand – both the lawyers and the judges belong to the same camp –being members of the BAR - collusion is often rampant and any hope of getting effective justice in such a system is at best nil – this is not to say that the are not many good officers in this capacity only to say that the price asked for administering justice is sometimes too high as is in the case of Jim Daily.—6 months after ruling against the Federal Reserve the judge was murdered. See:
http://www.mortgagefree4u.com/daly_decree.htm


I believe this raises the issues to be potentially addressed above the level that can be effectively handled by what are now generally de facto courts and governments – de facto for reasons not the least of which, oath of office filings have been long neglected also since 1933 our constitutional governments were largely supplanted with corporate states through actions taken with FDR to shed what ways left of our countries Sovran rights and status ceding it I believe to the Federal Reserve, IRS, agents of the International Bankers and the British Monarchy – so we are left reality as a vassal states in servitude paying most of our taxes to these unlawful overlords.

Further collusion against the people has come in the form of unelected dictatorial federal bureaucracies – is this not the same kind of taxation without representation that our forebears were so upset with?

Considering all these things it is my best consideration that any attempt for legal change to this system that now seems very much out of control – should be handled under what I believe are two of our most important change documents – i.e. the Declaration of Independence and the Magna Charta. Not that the de facto state governments could really reform of their own accord – but that the individual Sovereigns can declare their independence of the de facto officers State/Federal while affirming the lawful Articles of Confederation, the lawful state rights, as well as the lawful rights and responsibilities as they pertain to the Individual’s Sovereign Status – to include the establishment of Magna Charta - Common-law Jury Courts to secure an adequate venue for the Sovereign Individuals hearing.

The Illuminati mode of operation is that of divide and conquer through intrigue, deception, misrepresentation, or whatever means to obtain their ends. The establishment of Common-law Courts, where the previously passed 13th amendment barring titles of nobility and hence members of the BAR would be an excellent step in this direction –

These efforts are not to be taken on with either state or federal authority but under the venue of United Individual Sovereign Authority; hence I make no reference to being a Citizen or part of a city – to be directed by Washington D.C. or a state capitol as both of these positions can be greatly compromising. It is only through this recognition that the Individual Sovereign can have true claim and independence of the often corrupt and political machines that are set to work for the purpose of creating division, fear, and further enslavement of the people.

I recognize that this effort cannot be obtained by any one mans single action – but that each on demanding change must be a part of a larger action – or a new Sovereign Body Politic – which each effectively challenge the illegal actions of our de facto courts and governing bodies until we can bring these bodies back into balance and hopefully back into an acceptable constitutional and de jure status – [color=RoyalBlue]

While securing the individual liberties of the concerned patriots who are not content to wait and allow de facto state and federal officers, both elected and appointed to rule without effective recourse or opposition; it is important that we stand with all of those who desire to change things for the better - as while we keep unity among ourselves we are not so soon yet, to be divided.

The training of others desiring to learn the process of litigation is also important if we are going to let the de facto machines know we mean business –

Also the raising of likeminded individuals who will take the time to become involved is very important especially in the process of forming Common-law Juries.

The de facto court system is in league with the money changers as I understand it, through the floating bonds and levying fines as well as the taking of exorbitant legal fees, making it a crime for profit venture for the state. This system being set up as a commercial or debtor court system* should be fully challenged with a functional, lawful Common-law court system; that can and will either peacefully supplant the old system or use the remedial remedies given in the Magna Charta and also citing Declaration of Independence measures, so as to create and effective instrument for change by enforcing current delinquencies in the performance by public officials until they are ready to be upfront and quit flaunting the law they ask us to live by – otherwise as Sovereigns we can take official legal action on the part of the de jure – legal – lawful and constitutional governments to ensure their compliance or removal with fines and other penalties.

*[See: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/secretoath.htm]

We the people reserve the Right to Meet, Associate, Deliberate, Consider, Review the Law, affirming our belief that Common Law is the Supreme Law of the Land upon which our Constitutions are based to preserve the rights of the people – by following Jury made precedents in the process of arriving at Indictments, rendering verdicts as a lawfully empanelled Common Law Judicature Assembly true law is revealed and another vital check and balance system is restored to keep or our Republic healthy vital and functioning effectively, while still ensuring the rights, liberties and protections exclusively reserved to the people and not to any tyrannical government or their officers.

Utah Constitution
ARTICLE VIII
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Sec. 10. [Trial by jury.] In capital cases the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate.
[Other than the definition for Capital Crime, Capital is also defined as
“the political economy, commerce … either to support the human species or
to the facilitating of production. Bouvier's Law Dictionary : C1 : Page 7
of 124” in which light the Utah Constitution would also seem to bear weight
to the supporting of a similar provision found in the Constitution of the
united states of America.]
Utah Constitution
Article VIII Section 10 Clause 2
…In courts of general jurisdiction, except in capital cases, a jury shall consist
of eight jurors. In courts of inferior jurisdiction a jury shall consist of four
jurors. In criminal cases the verdict shall be unanimous.
In civil cases three-fourths of the jurors may find a verdict. A jury in civil
cases shall be waived unless demanded.

URL:http://courtlink.utcourts.gov/specproj/selserve.htm
1. Utah Code Section 78-46-21 forbids an employer from discharging or threatening employees for jury service. There is not in this same section a provision requiring employers to pay employees for their jury service
2. Utah Code Section 21-5-4 says:
(1) Every juror and witness legally required or in good faith requested to attend a trial court of record or not of record or a grand jury is entitled to:
(a) $18.50 for the first day of attendance and $49 per day for each subsequent day of attendance; and
(b) If traveling more than 50 miles, $1 for each four miles in excess of 50 miles actually and necessarily traveled in going only, regardless of county line.
Reference for Jury Compensation Guidelines:
http://www.fija.org/state_juror_comp...n_statutes.htm
URL:http://courtlink.utcourts.gov/specproj/selserve.htm


Constitution of the united states of America

7th Amendment
In Suits at Common Law, where the Value in Controversy shall exceed Twenty Dollars, the Right of Trial by Jury shall be preserved and no Fact tried by a Jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the Rules of the Common Law. 158
158 That is, these rules are (1) the granting of a new trial by the trial court and a hearing before another jury, or (2) a new jury trial ordered by an appellate court for some error of law committed by the trial court. In brief, no judge of a trial court can substitute his opinion of the facts for that of the jury, nor can an appellate court set aside the jury's findings and make a final order on its own

Instead of appointing judges, I feel that through the appointment of a Justicar ,an Arbiter, or other unused or less used designation of similar import, thus we can avoid conflict with the current legal system through resurrecting a legal form and position that has long since died to current practice and yet has a high standing of long tradition and merit in our Common Law heritage. I take this stand as I know many legalistic professions will sue or claim that only they can act in a certain manner. But if they have seemingly vacated their right to act in the same manner, it appear to then be an open playing field as proponents of the Judicature Reformation Movement organize.
[color=RoyalBlue]

The appointment of a “Justiciar” to function in office of a guide and director to ensure that the rights of the accused and the injured are both given a fair and impartial hearing, before the body of the Jury. The “Justiciar” is expressly barred from either sentencing or ruling, as both these functions are reserved to the wisdom of each courts particular Jury having been assembled to hear the matters at hand. Assigning too much responsibility to the fallibility of one man is almost nearly asking for the problems of weakness and ineptitude resulting from the too close reliance on the experience of a single man, instead of resorting to a lawful common law jury decision from a properly organized and conducted court.

Any treaties or laws in violation of these principles are to nullified, modified or changed on basis of jury review. In this manner Common Law is restored to it's rightful preeminence as the supreme law of the land and the usurpations of power and abuse by collective powers can be stopped and the peoples rights under common law restored


TRIAL BY JURY:

TRIAL BY JURY IS OUR CONSTITUTIONAL, INALIENABLE & INHERITED RIGHT. IT IS OUR SAFEGUARD OF FREEDOM. IT IS THE VOICE & CONSCIENCE OF THE PEOPLE TO DEFEAT INJUSTICE, CORRUPTION & TREACHERY. IN ANY ACTION, A JURY MUST DEMAND THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH & NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO JUDGE BOTH LAW & FACT. WHETHER A JUROR SWEARS AN OATH OR MAKES AN AFFIRMATION, THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE WHAT BINDS THE CONSCIENCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL.

MAGNA CARTA 1215, CAP XXIX: "No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be desseised of his freehold, or his liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any other wise destroyed, nor will we pass upon him nor condemn him (a), unless by the lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay, Right or Justice.".

The CONFIRMATION OF THE CHARTERS, 1297 says: “…that the Great Charters of Liberties and the Charter of the Forest, which were made by common assent of all the realm, in the time of King Henry our father, shall be kept in every point without breach….we have granted that they shall be observed in all points, and that our justices, sheriffs, mayors, and other officials which under us have to administer the laws of our land, shall allow the said charters in pleas before them and in judgments in all their points….And we will that if any judgment be given from henceforth, contrary to the points of the charters aforesaid, by the justices or by any other ministers that hold plea before them against the points of the charters, it shall be undone and holden for naught.”

The PETITION OF RIGHT, 1627 says: in section 3. “And where also by the statute called, The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, it is declared and enacted, That no freeman may be taken or imprisoned, or be desseised of his freehold or liberties or his free customs, or to be outlawed or exiled, or in manner destroyed, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.” and in section 8. “That the awards, doings and proceedings, to the prejudice of your people in any of the premises, shall not be drawn hereafter into consequence or example.”

The SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE ACT No. 49, 1900 says under section 3. “(1) In any action by consent of both parties the whole or any one or more of the issues of fact in question may be tried, or the amount of any damages or compensation may be assessed by a Judge without a jury.”.

The COMMON LAW PROCEDURE ACT No: 21, 1899 are relevant to the conduct of proceedings in this or any matter before the Supreme Court of New South Wales: “s.256. Upon the hearing of any motion or summons, the Court or Judge may, upon such terms as the Court of Judge thinks reasonable, order any document to be produced, and any witness to appear and be examined viva voce, either before the Court or a Judge or before a commissioner for affidavits; and upon hearing such evidence or reading the deposition may make such rule or order as may be just”.
and
“s.257. (1) The Court or Judge may by such rule or order, or by any subsequent rule or order, command the attendance of the witnesses named therein for the purpose of being examined or the production of any document mentioned therein”.
and
“s.259. The Court or judge may amend any notice of motion, rule nisi, writ, pleading, affidavit, jurat or title of affidavit, record, praecipe, or other proceeding used before the Court or Judge not likely to mislead the opposite party on any point essential to the merits of the case, and may award such reasonable costs of such amendment as to the Court or Judge seem fit.”

The INTERPRETATION ACT No. 15, 1987 says under section 30. “(1) The amendment or repeal of an Act or statutory rule does not: …(c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the Act or statutory rule.”.
[color=RoyalBlue]

Every person is entitled to NATURAL JUSTICE which is described as the “Rules of fair play, originally developed by the court of equity to control the decisions of inferior courts and then gradually extended (particularly in the 20th century) to apply equally to the decisions of administrative and domestic tribunals and any authority exercising an administrative power that affects a person’s status, rights and liabilities. Any decision reached in contravention of natural justice is void as ultra vires. There are 2 principal rules: (1) The first is the rule against bias (ie: against departure from the standard of even-handed justice required of those who occupy judicial office) - nemo judex in causa sua (or in propria causa). This means that any decision, however fair it may seem, is invalid if made by a person with any financial or other interest in the outcome or any known bias that might have affected his impartiality. The second rule is known as audi alteram partem (hear the other side). It states that a decision cannot stand unless the person directly affected by it was given a fair opportunity both to state his case and to know and answer the other side’s case.”.(Oxford Reference A Dictionary of Law, Oxford University Press, Third Edition).

HALSBURY’S LAWS OF AUSTRALIA says under (130-13460): “Consent to summary jurisdiction The consent to be tried summarily must be clear and uniquivocal and a failure to carry out the procedures for obtaining the consent will deprive the court of jurisdiction to determine the matters summarily.”

Thomas Jefferson said in 1821: “The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body - working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”.

Authors Note and Introduction to the UJRM as it is current form:

After I drafted this format Ron Robinson, picked up the ball and created the following blogspot. I must state however that views stated at this blogspot do not however necessarily, reflect my personal views, but must reflect the views of the independent authors. Further it is noted that the UJRM is a work in progress and I hope to steer it and the people involved to a place of greater balance, poise and objectivity, in regards to their working, writings, and contributions to the UJRM, so as to increase, the credibility and confidence, that the UJRM is able to command in the intervention and ruling of any or all matters appealed to the same for resolution. After this disclaimer, I now give you the link to the blogspot:
http://afetw.blogspot.com/2005/01/ut...-movement.html
[color=RoyalBlue]