Common law judgment

there is a rule i dont have in front of me that they are MANDATED to take judicial notice of revelant information. but, the main thing is, once u get the common law judgment, they cant overturn it and if they ignore it, you have to go to common law remedy which is taking their stuff by force. look, ive said this years ago, until we start taking their stuff by force, we dont have a chance. sad, but no pain, no gain.

[weishaupt1776]

There is a member here(name witheld) who successfully signed hi OWN order as a court of competent jurisdiction in a USDC.

We should strategize doing liens under RULE 64 w/ the common law judgement. Or is that mixing statutory dog poop in the common law brownie mix?

i wondered about that too, mixing rule 64 with common law, but, rule 64 says to use ANY remedy to attach, thus,since the feds recognize common law, shouldnt be a problem. the way im looking at it, the common law judgment is already in place BEFORE u initiate a action in district court. District Court will be used only to secure the judgment you already have (make it a secured debt vs a unsecured debt owed to you). in other words, winston shrout uses the private administrative process and gets private judgment, then does judicial review in district court. he already has a judgement. now , doing a common law default, you get judgment, you already got judgment. you wanna intitiate a full civil action in federal court to secure your judgment you already have by bringing a amended complaint and filing the lien. thats what i think should be done, AMENDED COMPLAINT, but the only difference is( vs judicial review ), you are intitiating a full blown action so that you can use rule 64. now, this is powerful what i said so if im in error, SOMEONE PLEASE CORRECT ME, whether u can file a amended complaint to start a full blown action.(like a title 42 lawsuit). i know you can in judicial review.

Ramsey v. Allegrie, 25 U.S. (12 Wheaton) 611, 631 (1827):
"If the common law can try the cause and give full redress, that alone takes away the admiralty jurisdiction."

[2501]

The Legal System By Patrick-James
*** Once again I must credit Brent-Emory..Johnson and his book "The Sovereign American" for the information on the following page.* This is all his work.* It is straight from Chapter Four of his book.


...



Ensminger v Farm Credit Bank of Wichita; First National Bank of Okeene, 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 7, 1995, Nos.* 94-64515, 94-6417, D.C. Nos.* CIV-94-1038-R, CIV-94-1040-R.* During this case the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged the validity and authority of the county common law venue courts of the people.* All Circuit Courts must follow suit.

good case cite because of the date!!!

just found this goody: from the georgia codes:
15-1-2.
Parties may not give jurisdiction to a court by consent, express or implied, as to the person or subject matter of an action. However, lack of jurisdiction of the person may be waived, insofar as the rights of the parties are concerned, but not so as to prejudice third persons

keeping it coming at ya: chisolm vs georgia
Conclusion
In a 4-to-1 decision, the justices held that "the people of the United States" intended to bind the states by the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the national government. The Court held that supreme or sovereign power was retained by citizens themselves, not by the "artificial person" of the State of Georgia. The Constitution made clear that controversies between individual states and citizens of other states were under the jurisdiction of federal courts. State conduct was subject to judicial review.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by kgod999

From Georgia o.c.g.a 1-1-10
(c) The following specific laws and parts of laws are not repealed by the adoption of this Code and shall remain of full force and effect, pursuant to their terms, until otherwise repealed, amended, superseded, or declared invalid or unconstitutional:
(1) An Act for reviving and enforcing certain laws therein mentioned and adopting the common laws of England as they existed on May 14, 1776, approved February 25, 1784. (For the adopting Act of 1784, see Prince´s 1822 Digest, p. 570; Cobb´s 1851 Digest, p. 721; and Code of 1863, Section 1, paragraph 6.)

but wait, theres more, they repealed THEIR LAWS PRIOR TO 1933!!!
1-1-10.
(a) The following Codes, laws, and parts of laws are repealed, except as otherwise provided in this Code section:
(1) The Code of Georgia of 1933, as amended;
(2) All general laws enacted by the General Assembly of Georgia prior to June 1, 1981, except this Code and except as otherwise provided in this Code section; and
(3) All codes enacted or approved by the General Assembly prior to the Code of Georgia of 1933.

--

wow, that's amazing!