Common law judgment

I need further research into how we can use this as a common law tool to get remedy for constitutional violations by public officers. The key is whether we have to use a common law court to get the judgment set up. im thinking a justice of the peace along with 12 sovereigns setting up the judgment, get it apostilled (authenticated) and filed into public record.
(note, if you cannot get a common law court set up, just default them with a private contract,and record your judgment into the public records. its still a judgment, just not one from a court)



FOREIGN MONEY JUDGMENT - A judgement/award for money that was won in/issued by a non-U.S. court or tribunal.

In Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 205-6 (1895), the leading common law foreign money judgment case, the Supreme Court indicated that: When an action is brought in a court of this country, by a citizen of a foreign country against one of our own citizens, to recover a sum of money adjudged by a court of that country to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff, and the foreign judgment appears to have been rendered by a competent court, having jurisdiction of the cause and of the parties, and upon due allegations and proofs, and opportunity to defend against them, and its proceedings are according to the course of a civilized jurisprudence, and are stated in a clear and formal record, the judgment is prima facie evidence, at least, of the truth of the matter adjudged . . . . Fiske, Emery & Assocs. v. Ajello, 577 A.2d 1139, 1141-43 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1989) (the court noted that under the Foreign Money-Judgments Act, a foreign judgment will be recognized unless 'one of the grounds for nonrecognition of the foreign judgment' is made out; the nonrecognition conditions were characterized as 'defense[s]'). Contra, Ackermann v. Levine, 788 F.2d 830, 842 n.12 (2d Cir.'86) (plaintiff sought enforcement of a foreign judgment under the Act and had to show prima facie that there was subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and that there were regular proceedings conducted by tribunals with procedures that are compatible with due process).

It has long been the law of the United States that a foreign judgment cannot be enforced if it was obtained in a manner that did not accord with the basics of due process. See Hilton, 159 U.S. at 205-6. As the Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States succinctly puts it: 'A court in the United States may not recognize a judgment of a court of a foreign state if: (a) the judgment was rendered under a judicial system that does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with due process of law ....' S 482(1)(a)(1987).

A judgment rendered in a foreign state.

Foreign judgments are authenticated in various ways;
1. By an exemplification, certified under the great seal of the state or country where it was rendered.
2. By a copy proved to be a true copy.
3. By the certificate of an officer authorized by law, which certificate must, itself, be properly authenticated. There is a difference between the judgments of courts of common law jurisdiction and courts of admiralty, as to the mode of proof of judgments rendered by them. Courts of admiralty are under the law of nations; certificates of such judgments with their seals affixed, will therefore be admitted in evidence without further proof.

A judgment rendered in a foreign country by a court de jure or even a court defacto in a matter within its jurisdiction, when the parties litigant had been notified and have had an opportunity of being heard, either establishing a demand against the defendant or discharging him from it, is of binding force.

some of you may have seen this before from a Canadian example:
(Note, students of Winston Shrout may notice that one of the main differences in the common law default process is the number of days for the accused to defend against your claim. Winston models his private contracts/claims after their statutory 10 day contract default method.) i prefer the common law default of 30 days, which is coded as 20 legal days in the federal statutes.)
COMMON LAW COURT PROCEDURE
The Common Law Court DOES NOT consist of a courthouse, judges, Crown Councils or lawyers. It DOES NOT recognize any make-believe "officers" of make-believe ships called bodies corporate or bodies politic. Any interference in an Anglo-Saxon Common Law court by any make-believe officer of a body politic constitutes interference in the course of justice - thus making such officer liable for the debt/co-debtor of the violating party.

The Common Law DOES NOT consist of the Queen's/King's law. The Anglo Saxon Common Law is "God's Law", which we commonly know as the Golden Rule; and, therefore the Anglo-Saxon Common Law Court is God's Court, NOT the Queen's/King's Court.

From recent evidence presented to the High Court of Great Britain by the movement to nullify the false Australian constitution and government (March 6/03), "the Queen is a Public Servant! She is “part and parcel” of the United Kingdom Parliament, and consequently she does not hold any Executive Authority over Australia (nor over Canada), nor has she ever had any Executive Authority over Australia (or, over Canada)!"

"How can the Queen be a constitutional Monarch in Australia (or in Canada), when as an independent State, we have never set-up a Monarchy; nor, have we set-up an Act of Secession?"
My note: The Statutes Revision Act of 1893 (BR.) recinded Section 2 of the BNA Act 1867, the Secession right of British Monarchs provision for Canada.

"The Privy Council has replied in writing: “The Queen cannot by British Law, hold a Constitutional or Executive Position in other than the United Kingdom." The current situation in Australia (and in Canada) is absolutely impossible in British Law!"

"The Privy Council has confirmed, that as the British Parliament has no Executive Authority over Australia (or, over Canada), therefore the Queen cannot have any authority over Australia (or, over Canada)!

What Is A Common Law Court?

The Common Law Court consists of a properly drawn Statement of Claim. The claim is then served by bailiff upon the violating party, or, where the violating party is unavailable for service, a legal notice in a local newspaper's legal notices section one day during four consecutive weeks. That party has 20 legal (week) days to either make recompense for the claimed debt, or go to the sheriff and request a jury trial. If the violating party does nothing within the 20 legal days, a default judgment is issued by the injured party, either by service and or legal notice.

If the Claim is disputed, then the Sheriff becomes part of the Court. The Sheriff calls the jury and keeps order, and collects judgments. The Clerk of the Court, any court is the record keeper. If clerks of the current de facto court system refuse to file your documents in court records, the legal section of the local newspaper suffices.

Background

All of our physical being falls within the catagory of "property".

The "bundle of rights" of the Right of Property is: the right to own, use, sell, exchange, give away and bequeath property. The act of selling, exchanging or giving away property entails a contract - a mechanism either written, spoken or assumed, whereby that contract is available as evidence in a court of law for the purposes of proof of a willing exchange or to effect the equalization of exchange - settle a debt. Any outside (third party) interference in an A-S Common Law court is an interference in a private contract and associated enforcement of that contract, thus making the interfering party a co-debtor with the violating party.

The act by a man/woman in violating the rights - property of another man/woman is, in effect a contract wherein the injured party has not offered a price to the violating party for the property taken or destroyed. Thus, an injured party serves a claim/invoice upon the violating party which the injured party believes is an equitable settlement for that property or right lost. Should the violating party choose to present his/her case to a jury of equal status men/women (peers), then that jury can decide if the claim/invoice is equitable, or if it should be reduced or increased according to the jury's findings in the case.

If the violating party does not dispute the claim, or, a jury finds for the injured party, then the injured party can collect the debt by lien and seizure of property. This is a duty of the sheriff. If there is no sheriff; or, if the sheriff refuses to do his duty, then physical action may be used against the violating party by the injured party, or by any other man or men called by the injured party to collect the debt or cause physical retribution upon the violating party.

The Claim

The Common Law CLAIM must address the man (male or female) in their given and family or clan names.

The Common Law ONLY recognizes a free will full liability mind. The body of a man is a vessel for the mind, and is the private property of the mind. The Common Law judges the motives of the mind, not the phrsical actions of a man's body.

A Common Law Claim may be filed into the records of any court, or in the newspaper that is designated by government to be the carrier of legal notices. The amount of times required for posting of claims may vary from province to province.

A Common Law Claim must be served to the accused party by bailiff.

The Claim must be entitled "Claim At Law"

The Claimant must introduce himself/herself in the first paragraph with their full given and family name and state their status as a full liability free will man/woman, and declare that they make claim as follows:

The Accused (do not use "defendant") must be named using full names in proper noun fashion - no initials. Suggested format: John Smith, acting as judge for the Provincial Court of Ontario, a de facto corporate commercial court. The term "acting as" is very important to signify that the man is "in the fiction" against a man in the free will full liability flesh and blood.

Supposing John Smith is a CCRA agent who has committed treason against you..... The second paragraph would read something like this:

The Accused, John Smith, acting as Canada Customs and Revenue Agent (CCRA) out of the CCRA office at ___ did commit an act of nuisance in the manner of treason against this Claimant on or about _date_ by the following actions, to wit: (describe criminal acts)

The sum of actual damages (losses, lost work, expenses) in the amount of $______ plus statutory compensation in the amount of $_______ (find in Criminal code) totalling $_________________ is demanded from the Accused.

Twenty(20) legal days from date of service of this claim are hereby given for a proper answer.

Any interference in this claim by statutory courts or statutory court officers will result in immediate declaration of default judgment. Any statutory court officer who may interfere in the course of justice shall be included as co-accused subject to financial responsibility for any judgments or default judgments.

Failure of the Accused to make a proper answer within the alloted time of twenty (20) legal days will result in a default judgment and collection by distraint.

Sworn or declared before me this (day) of (date) at (city/town)

Clerk of the Court or Commissioner for Oaths or Notary Public Claimant

Establishing the contract, look up ucc 1-103.6 anderson's edition as it pertains to this.

Definition of Common Law and Statutory Law
The seventh amendment reads: “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.” Civil laws are those statutes written and agreed upon by some governmental entity from the federal to the city levels. Common law is founded upon “common sense” which is often not written but is based upon tradition and prior cases. Codification is the attempt to write down and interpret what the common law is in a particular area. Statutes are usually not based upon the common law in any form.

While our court system originally was based on common law, the court system today is largely a statutory court. It will not allow precedents in its courts before 1938 when common law courts were….well, common. While largely ignored, the common law courts are still legal in the United States. When any contract is written it must specify which court system will apply—a particular statutory/admiralty court or the common law court. This is called establishing the jurisdiction.

If a contract states something to the effect that ‘it will be adjudicated under the laws of the State of _________’ it is a statutory contract. The signers of such a statutory contract will then be beholden to the morass of legalese that exists on the books that few people other than lawyers and judges understand. These contracts tend to be shorter than common law contracts because they do not specify which laws will apply, but shorthand it by saying “according to the laws of the State of ________.”

That is why specialized lawyers are so important in statutory contracts. You want a lawyer who thoroughly understands the laws applying to your field of interest and jurisdiction and how that contract will be interpreted. Often common terms have entirely different legal meanings and are one of the easiest ways for loopholes to be created. It will sound innocuous to one party while the other chuckles behind their hand, knowing the true meaning. Also when crossing state or national borders and making contracts outside of your locale, what may be acceptable verbiage in one jurisdiction could mean something entirely different in another.

In a common law contract everything is spelled out that will apply to that contract including the precedents it is based upon. It makes for longer contracts, but there are no hidden laws to worry about. Both parties are expected to PERSONALLY understand exactly what is written and they are expected to talk about it until they do understand. Greater responsibility is placed on the signers to actually read and know what the terms are. Words mean what they commonly mean and anything that is not clear is defined at the beginning of the contract.

Every contract to be legal must have a provision spelling out what will happen if one of the parties breaks the contract. This is referred to as a remedy. In a statutory contract the remedy is spelled out only in the written statutory laws few understand. In a common law contract the remedies are spelled out very carefully. Common law contracts are no longer common so they must be even more careful to spell out the arbitration and jury process that used to be well known. This makes the common law contract even longer.

Because most people are so used to not understanding legalese they are scared off by the very length of the common law contract and their eyes glaze over. Fully half of any common law contract is repeatable in other similar contracts and will not change much. Once common law contracts are used more and the precedents become familiar and the types of remedy become familiar, the length of the contracts will no longer scare people away. Common law contracts are meant for common, educated, intelligent people to understand.

Showing a common law contract to an attorney who belongs to the bar of any state will create havoc. Such attorneys are barred from practicing common law. They may be able to comment on the specific terms at the beginning of the contract, but they will not understand the common law provisions at all. They were not trained to and as was stated they are actually barred from doing so. They will try to write in provisions having to do with statutory law.

There are unbarred attorneys who practice common law, but there aren’t many. We usually think of unbarred attorneys as sleazy characters who break the law egregiously, but there are those who purposely give up their bar designation to practice common law.

Attorneys today are schooled in statutory law and have twisted the meaning of common law to mean those precedents set in place after 1938. Most attorneys are not even aware of being restricted by that date and often try to win cases using precedents from previous years. They will lose every time unless they have newer cases to back it up. Lawyers will claim we have a common law court today, but we effectively have a statutory court.



Common Provisions of a Common Law Contract
A common law contract will sometimes have a full page of definitions of certain words so that there is no misunderstanding as to what is being referred to or said. It is very important to read each definition and refer back to it often while studying the contract.





Instead of making the jurisdiction one of the states and its laws you will see a statement something like this:

APPLICABLE LAW: This Agreement is governed by the agreement of the Parties, common law in the original jurisdiction of 1789, and applicable contract and commercial law as used in time immemorial. This Contract is a private common law contract as defined in this contract. The agreement of the parties as expressed by the obligations, terms and conditions stated herein are the law of the case, in any case arising from the workings of this contract.

In less legal terms this is saying that the Parties are agreeing to the common law as defined in the contract and under the original congressional act of 1789 that established the court system; it also includes the UCC. Common law also includes people’s inalienable rights (those rights given by God). The last sentence above means there are no surprises in a court case; the contract is the agreement and not some obscure law no one but lawyers know about.

Like many statutory contracts, you can put in an arbitration clause (otherwise known as mediation). If there is a dispute you try and work it out rather than take it to court first. You can use the American Arbitration rules just like the statutory contracts would, except you wouldnt hire barred lawyers to arbitrate.

Each party chooses someone to represent them and the two representatives choose a third representative. The arbitrators listen to the dispute and then vote to decide how to make both parties “whole” (correct the dispute). The majority vote wins. If one party is still dissatisfied, they can then invoke a common law jury and court to hear the case.

Each party chooses six willing jurors and the jurors choose a thirteenth person to be the foreman. The foreman only votes in case of a tie and should be well versed in common law. The jurors ideally should all ready be familiar with the case (in direct contrast to statutory court where they want jurors who know little about the case).

Also in direct contrast to statutory or admiralty courts, no evidence can or should be withheld. All evidence that is pertinent is presented. Another interesting difference is that this court can be held in private and all matters decided and adjudicated can remain private matters and are held in strict confidence during and after the trial.

The foreman puts into writing the decision of the jury and each party is expected to abide by it. If one party does not abide by the jurors decisions, the offended party is then allowed to lien the other party in a statutory/admiralty court and seeks redress through that court as a last resort. Of course the contract may be held to a different level of scrutiny by that court, but as long as all the provisions of the contract were carried out by the offended party, the judge will almost be forced to award the offended party the decision of the common law jury.

Common Precedents
Statutory/Admiralty courts do not allow cases before 1938 to be used as a precedent in deciding a case. In stark contrast common law is based on very old precedents such as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence of 1776, the Judiciary Act of 1789, and court cases in a common law court that are pertinent and public knowledge.

Summary--Parts of the Contract
The first part of the contract covers who the parties to the contract are and what the contract is for. This is true of either type of contract—statutory or common law.

The second part of the contract is the definitions of terms used in the contract that may prove ambiguous without an explanation. This is true of any contract.

The third part of the contract is specific terms of the contract. It is the heart of the contract. This part of the contract will specify what is expected of each party and when.

The fourth part of the contract will specify the jurisdiction and all the terms of the common law portion of the contract including what the redress or recourse is should one party fail to fulfill their part of the contract.

The fifth part of the contract is the general terms which are seen in most any type of contract whether statutory or common. It will include things like you have authorization to sign the contract, there are no hidden verbal agreements, it is all written etc.

Title 16: COURT PROCEDURE -- EVIDENCE
Chapter 3: RECORDS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS
Subchapter 2: JUDICIAL NOTICE

§402. Common law and statutes

Every court of this State shall take judicial notice of the common law and statutes of every state, territory and other jurisdiction of the United States.
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public. If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Office of the Revisor of Statutes
7 State House Station
State House Room 108
Augusta, Maine 04333-0007 ( i smell equal protection clause right here, this can be used in all states)

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.

[Akira]

kgod,

Please feel free to research and quote Maine statutes at every opportunity !

Originally Posted by kgod999

Title 16: COURT PROCEDURE -- EVIDENCE
Chapter 3: RECORDS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS
Subchapter 2: JUDICIAL NOTICE

§402. Common law and statutes

Every court of this State shall take judicial notice of the common law and statutes of every state, territory and other jurisdiction of the United States.

The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public. If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.

Office of the Revisor of Statutes
7 State House Station
State House Room 108
Augusta, Maine 04333-0007

( i smell equal protection clause right here, this can be used in all states)

I wish more folks would follow your example !

I'll take all the help I can get !

For HIS Glory,
Akira

yes, people are sleeping on this thread. well, i tried.

[weishaupt1776]

Or some of us have been ingesting it, and need to towel off

KG, this is by far an instant classic at sj.net

i try my best. Look, we got to use this.

[seeker]

I used that and Submitted it for Judicial Notice -- the judge says -- what does that have to do with us?

huh?????????????? And only AFTER it was pointedly pointed out to his pointy little head!