Question for JRB – about fraudulent concealment

So, if a judge-clerk in a room called a court, when asked directly, does not openly admit the jurisdiction they are operating under is military-admiralty-insurance, IF it is not revealed-disclosed to people, when asked directly, “Is this a court of common law?’ then, is the concealment of this material fact alone, by way of CALCULATION TO DECEIVE, FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT?

However, can fraud upon the court exist, when it is not a court of law? And as the judge-clerk acts as a trustee for the public name-trust by way of attornment, are they not in breach of their good faith fidicuary obligations-duties if they do not reveal-disclsoe ALL of the material facts?

It is a fraud to conceal a fraud.
False in one thing, false in everything.
Out of fraud no action arises.
No right of action can have its origin in fraud.
Fraud is odious and not to be presumed.
Fraud and deceit should excuse no man.
Fraud and justice never agree together.
Fraud lies hid in general expressions.
Fraud deserves fraud.
An act done by me against my will, is not my act.

CONCEALMENT - The unlawful suppression of any fact or circumstance by one of the partys to a contract from the other, which in justice ought to be made known.??FRAUD OCCURS WHEN ONE PERSON SUBSTANTIALLY MISREPRESENTS OR CONCEALS A MATERIAL FACT PECULIARLY WITHIN HIS OWN KNOWLEDGE, in consequence of which a delusion exists; or uses a device naturally calculated to lull the suspicions of a careful man sp as to induce him to forego inquiry into a matter upon which the other party has information, although such information be not exclusively within his reach. The party is not bound, however, to disclose patent defects. http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c266.htm

constructive fraud- when the circumstances show that someone's actions give him/her an unfair advantage over another by unfair means (lying or not telling a buyer about defects in a product, for example OR; NO FULL DISCLOSURE OF ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS), the court may decide from the methods used and the result that it should treat the situation as if there was actual fraud even if all the technical elements of fraud have not been proven.

extrinsic fraud - fraudulent acts which keep a person from obtaining information about his/her rights to ENFORCE A CONTRACT or getting evidence to defend against a lawsuit. This could include destroying evidence or MISLEADING AN IGNORANT PERSON about the right to sue.

intrinsic fraud - fraud (as by use of forged documents or false claims or perjury) that misleads a court or jury and induces a finding for the one perpetrating the fraud

http://www.geocities.com/towcrime/an...itconceal.html
http://www.ballew.com/bob/htm/fotc.htm
http://www.clr.org/Fraud-makes-void.html

FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT

Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters. Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U.S 426.

Fraud vitiates everything, Boyce v. Grundy, 3 Pet. 210.

Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and even judgments. U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61.3

ACTS DONE "IN FRAUDEM LEGIS," ARE ACTS IN VIOLATION OF LAW. [In fraud of the law. Every thing done in fraudem legis is void in law. 2 Ves. sen. 155, 156 Bouv. Inst. n. 585, 3834.]

Party having SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE WHO TAKES ADVANTAGE OF ANOTHER’S IGNORANCE OF THE LAW TO DECEIVE HIM BY STUDIED CONCEALMENT OR MISREPRESENTATION CAN BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT CONDUCT. Fina Supply, Inc. v. Abilene Nat. Bank, 726 S.W.2d 537, 1987.

Knowing failure to disclose material information necessary to prevent statement from being misleading, or making representation despite knowledge that it has no reasonable basis in fact, are actionable as fraud under Texas law. Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3d 160, 1990.

Party in interest may become liable for fraud by mere silent acquiescence and partaking of benefits of fraud. Bransom v. Standard Hardware, Inc., 874 S.W.2d 919, 1994.

When circumstances impose duty to speak and one deliberately remains silent, silence is equivalent to false representation. Fisher Controls International, Inc. v. Gibbons, 911 S.W. 2d 135, 1995.

When a person sustains to another a position of trust and confidence, his failure to disclose facts that he has a duty to disclose is as much a fraud as an actual misrepresentation. Blanton v. Sherman Compress Co., 256 S.W. 2d 884, 1953.

It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit "fraud upon the court" vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions."); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters ..."); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything."); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).

In re Eugene Lee Armentrout, Jay Robert Grodner, Charles A. Petersen, Kim Edward Presbrey, William H. Weir, and William John Truemper, Jr., 99 Ill.2d 242, 75 Ill.Dec. 703, 457 N.E.2d 1262 (1983) that:

"Fraud encompasses a broad range of human behavior, including *ANYTHING CALCULATED TO DECEIVE* whether it be by direct falsehood or by innuendo, by speech or by silence, by word of mouth or by look or gesture.' " (Regenold v. Baby Fold, Inc. (1977), 68 Ill.2d 419, 435, 12 Ill.Dec. 151, 369 N.E.2d 858, citing People ex rel. Chicago Bar Association v. Gilmore (1931), 345 Ill. 28, 46, 177 N.E. 710; In re Alschuler (1944), 388 Ill. 492, 503-04; Black's Law Dictionary 594 (5th ed. 1979).) Too, this court has previously disciplined lawyers even though their fraudulent misconduct did not harm [99 Ill.2d 252] any particular individual. In re Lamberis (1982), 93 Ill.2d 222, 229, 66 Ill.Dec. 623, 443 N.E.2d 549."

"The Court has broadly defined fraud as any conduct calculated to deceive, whether it be by direct falsehood or by innuendo, by speech or silence, by word of mouth, by look, or by gesture. FRAUD INCLUDES THE SUPPRESSION OF THE TRUTH, as well as the presentation of false information. (In re Witt (1991) 145 Ill.2d 380, 583 N.E.2d 526, 531, 164 Ill. Dec. 610).". See also In re Frederick Edward Strufe, Disciplinary case no. 93 SH 100 where the Court stated that "Fraud has been broadly defined as anything calculated to deceive."

[squirrel]

You wont get an answer.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by squirrel

You wont get an answer.

Exactly, but I have been biting my tongue so to give JRB plenty of time to consider it.

Even hidden behind the handle, in the court of cyberspace, he will give no answer because he is so accustomed to appearance curing all defects in jurisdiction.

Here is where the rubber meets the road folks. If you can introduce the maxim properly before arraignment, "Fraud vitiates all.", JRB types will never say it out loud, "You have to contract with the municipal government corporation whether you want to or not."


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by free_martha

So, if a judge-clerk in a room called a court, when asked directly, does not openly admit the jurisdiction they are operating under is military-admiralty-insurance, IF it is not revealed-disclosed to people, when asked directly, “Is this a court of common law?’ then, is the concealment of this material fact alone, by way of CALCULATION TO DECEIVE, FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT?

No, because the question is based upon something that is not a fact, merely a supposition framed within a mythological theory. This is the equivalent of asking: "Because the sun orbits around the earth, isn't testifying under oath that the earth isn't the center of the universe perjury?"

Originally Posted by free_martha

However, can fraud upon the court exist, when it is not a court of law? And as the judge-clerk acts as a trustee for the public name-trust by way of attornment, are they not in breach of their good faith fidicuary obligations-duties if they do not reveal-disclsoe ALL of the material facts?

The question again fails in construct because it assumes facts that are nothing more than gibberish statements designed to provide the author an air of authority. Parties to lawsuits can be sanctioned for such innanity. Here we can only be temporarily amused.

Originally Posted by free_martha

It is a fraud to conceal a fraud.
False in one thing, false in everything.
Out of fraud no action arises.
No right of action can have its origin in fraud.
Fraud is odious and not to be presumed.
Fraud and deceit should excuse no man.
Fraud and justice never agree together.
Fraud lies hid in general expressions.
Fraud deserves fraud.
An act done by me against my will, is not my act.

CONCEALMENT - The unlawful suppression of any fact or circumstance by one of the partys to a contract from the other, which in justice ought to be made known.??FRAUD OCCURS WHEN ONE PERSON SUBSTANTIALLY MISREPRESENTS OR CONCEALS A MATERIAL FACT PECULIARLY WITHIN HIS OWN KNOWLEDGE, in consequence of which a delusion exists; or uses a device naturally calculated to lull the suspicions of a careful man sp as to induce him to forego inquiry into a matter upon which the other party has information, although such information be not exclusively within his reach. The party is not bound, however, to disclose patent defects. http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c266.htm

constructive fraud- when the circumstances show that someone's actions give him/her an unfair advantage over another by unfair means (lying or not telling a buyer about defects in a product, for example OR; NO FULL DISCLOSURE OF ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS), the court may decide from the methods used and the result that it should treat the situation as if there was actual fraud even if all the technical elements of fraud have not been proven.

extrinsic fraud - fraudulent acts which keep a person from obtaining information about his/her rights to ENFORCE A CONTRACT or getting evidence to defend against a lawsuit. This could include destroying evidence or MISLEADING AN IGNORANT PERSON about the right to sue.

intrinsic fraud - fraud (as by use of forged documents or false claims or perjury) that misleads a court or jury and induces a finding for the one perpetrating the fraud

http://www.geocities.com/towcrime/an...itconceal.html
http://www.ballew.com/bob/htm/fotc.htm
http://www.clr.org/Fraud-makes-void.html

FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT

Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters. Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U.S 426.

Fraud vitiates everything, Boyce v. Grundy, 3 Pet. 210.

Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and even judgments. U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61.3

ACTS DONE "IN FRAUDEM LEGIS," ARE ACTS IN VIOLATION OF LAW. [In fraud of the law. Every thing done in fraudem legis is void in law. 2 Ves. sen. 155, 156 Bouv. Inst. n. 585, 3834.]

Party having SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE WHO TAKES ADVANTAGE OF ANOTHER’S IGNORANCE OF THE LAW TO DECEIVE HIM BY STUDIED CONCEALMENT OR MISREPRESENTATION CAN BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT CONDUCT. Fina Supply, Inc. v. Abilene Nat. Bank, 726 S.W.2d 537, 1987.

Knowing failure to disclose material information necessary to prevent statement from being misleading, or making representation despite knowledge that it has no reasonable basis in fact, are actionable as fraud under Texas law. Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3d 160, 1990.

Party in interest may become liable for fraud by mere silent acquiescence and partaking of benefits of fraud. Bransom v. Standard Hardware, Inc., 874 S.W.2d 919, 1994.

When circumstances impose duty to speak and one deliberately remains silent, silence is equivalent to false representation. Fisher Controls International, Inc. v. Gibbons, 911 S.W. 2d 135, 1995.

When a person sustains to another a position of trust and confidence, his failure to disclose facts that he has a duty to disclose is as much a fraud as an actual misrepresentation. Blanton v. Sherman Compress Co., 256 S.W. 2d 884, 1953.

It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit "fraud upon the court" vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions."); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters ..."); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything."); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).

In re Eugene Lee Armentrout, Jay Robert Grodner, Charles A. Petersen, Kim Edward Presbrey, William H. Weir, and William John Truemper, Jr., 99 Ill.2d 242, 75 Ill.Dec. 703, 457 N.E.2d 1262 (1983) that:

"Fraud encompasses a broad range of human behavior, including *ANYTHING CALCULATED TO DECEIVE* whether it be by direct falsehood or by innuendo, by speech or by silence, by word of mouth or by look or gesture.' " (Regenold v. Baby Fold, Inc. (1977), 68 Ill.2d 419, 435, 12 Ill.Dec. 151, 369 N.E.2d 858, citing People ex rel. Chicago Bar Association v. Gilmore (1931), 345 Ill. 28, 46, 177 N.E. 710; In re Alschuler (1944), 388 Ill. 492, 503-04; Black's Law Dictionary 594 (5th ed. 1979).) Too, this court has previously disciplined lawyers even though their fraudulent misconduct did not harm [99 Ill.2d 252] any particular individual. In re Lamberis (1982), 93 Ill.2d 222, 229, 66 Ill.Dec. 623, 443 N.E.2d 549."

"The Court has broadly defined fraud as any conduct calculated to deceive, whether it be by direct falsehood or by innuendo, by speech or silence, by word of mouth, by look, or by gesture. FRAUD INCLUDES THE SUPPRESSION OF THE TRUTH, as well as the presentation of false information. (In re Witt (1991) 145 Ill.2d 380, 583 N.E.2d 526, 531, 164 Ill. Dec. 610).". See also In re Frederick Edward Strufe, Disciplinary case no. 93 SH 100 where the Court stated that "Fraud has been broadly defined as anything calculated to deceive."

Ah the miracle of cut and paste.

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by free_martha

So, if a judge-clerk in a room called a court, when asked directly, does not openly admit the jurisdiction they are operating under is military-admiralty-insurance, IF it is not revealed-disclosed to people, when asked directly, “Is this a court of common law?’ then, is the concealment of this material fact alone, by way of CALCULATION TO DECEIVE, FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT?

You start assuming the "truth" of what you assert, and then pretend like if the court doesn't admit what you claim is the "truth" then there is fraudulent concealment.

You start with a false premise.

So, if NASA does not openly admit that the world is flat, then is the concealment of this material fact fraudulent concealment?

All acts of the legislature apparently contrary to natural right and justice are, in our law and must be in the nature of things, considered as void. The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth.

A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions, which contradict His (God's) laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey. 1772, Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109.

I assume nothing. To “ass-U-me” makes an ass out of “U” and me. However JRB you are ass-U-ming that Canada and the US are not common law countries and that common law is not the law of the land and of the people. Your US Constitution, is a common law document and most of the rights enumerated therein are Biblical in source.

Every court is a court of common law. How do I know this - I walked into the courthouse and asked them.

Now the ‘common law’ has never been enacted or codified, and is "That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856

Running concurrently in the common law courtrooms, is Roman civil military-law, and if there is a limited liability insurance contract it gets adjudicated by a judge-clerk in Roman-civil-military law unless it is specified on the contract which law shall be applicable, either civil [Roman] or the common law so it is matter of establishing jurisdiction. Any cases which have been adjucated in the Roman civil military-law are unapplicable in the common law. Statute of Westminster 1931, Section 6: Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this Act, section four of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, and so much of section seven of that Act as requires the approval of His Majesty in Council to any rules of Court for regulating the practice and procedure of a COLONIAL COURT OF ADMIRALTY, SHALL CEASE TO HAVE EFFECT IN ANY DOMINION AS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS ACT.

As the common law is antecedent to England, we inherited common law as per the Magna Charta, (38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it. (39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the [common] law of the land. (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

Plus the Queen in 1953 swore an oath at her coronation to uphold the laws of God and His rule of law, so the Bible is the rule of law and the law of the land and in the courtrooms. Oaths are dealt with in section 22 of the Westminster Confession of Faith 1646. “…..Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of Yehovah and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, ACCORDING TO THEIR RESPECTIVE LAWS AND CUSTOMS?”

Every public servant must swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen, to honor and obey, however the commoners, the people of the land have sworn no such oaths and if they are not employed in a governmental capacity, then the ‘civil codes and regulations’ do not apply to commoners, as we have our own common law of the land – the Bible – which the Queen has sworn to protect under the Laws of Yehovah, according to our respective laws and common law customs.

http://www.nlf.net/About/briefs/hawbrf.html

The Declaration of Independence Espouses the Principle of Adherence to the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.

The chief principle espoused by the Declaration is that of adherence to "the laws of nature and of nature's God". The drafters of the Declaration thoroughly believed in the notion of "unalienable" rights; that certain rights and liberties existed, quite independent of any positive law, which the government of this new nation was erected simply to recognize and protect. The founders of this nation were steeped in the tradition of "the law of nature" and this influential concept thus became an integral part of the nation's own "charter document".

This concept was "almost universally accepted" by the "founding generation," and nearly all agreed that certain "transcendent principles" put their rights under government "beyond the reach of human law."

Terry Brennan, Natural Rights and the Constitution The Original "Original Intent", 15 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Policy 965, 975, 979 (1992) [hereinafter, Brennan]. The drafters of the Declaration firmly believed that government action was legitimate "only in proportion as [it] is consistent with the laws and the views of nature." Brennan, supra at 980, quoting William Van Murray, A Citizen of the [u]nited [S]tates, Political Sketches, Am. Museum, Sept. 1787, at 247. Moreover, they were convinced that this law of nature was divine in origin. Brennan, supra at 981, 981 n. 96 (quoting a prominent Federalist as asking :

[W]hat man is there in existence ... that knows not that the will of his creator is the law of nature?

The widespread acceptance of the divine origin of this law thus accounts for the description of natural law as the law "of nature's God."

The most prominent example of this, of course, is the Declaration's mention of the "laws of nature and of nature's God." The Declaration of Independence para. 1 (U.S. 1776). This idea appears in earlier writings, however, which would indicate that the Declaration merely incorporated principles which were widely accepted at the time. See Robin v. Hardaway, 2 Va. 2 Jefferson) 109, 115 (1772) (wherein George Mason argued in court that "The laws of nature are the laws of God; whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth.").

Thus, our government was not founded to be a law unto itself, but was intended to operate within narrow limits imposed by a higher law of nature and nature's God.

Indeed, the idea of a higher law "is profoundly embedded in American constitutional law."

William Bentley Ball, What's A Constitution Without Natural Law? in the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God 5 (Plymouth Rock Foundation, Inc. ed. 1992). Furthermore, this new government was not to enact whatever laws were expedient, but only those which conformed to the higher law. Thus, to be consistent with the principles of the Declaration, as required by its Admission Act, Hawaii's laws must conform to the laws of nature and of nature's God. A non-conforming law is not legitimately within the power of the state to enact.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Martha, do you have a random word/sentence/paragraph/thematic generator in operation? Is there some coherent point buried somewhere behind your word processor that just can't find its way out?

Like so much of the gibberish being sold/promoted to people looking for answers, the diatribe serves only the author.

Is common law the law of the land?

A simple, direct answer shall suffice. Either - Yes___ or No

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by free_martha

Is common law the law of the land?

A simple, direct answer shall suffice. Either - Yes___ or No

The "law of the land" is not limited to common law.