Need help quick with simple common law question...

[David Merrill]

I made my point about Erie Doctrine.

You are getting back toward the initial question. In the State Codes, where is the term of grace given in that body of common law? How long before an estoppel can no longer be challenged?

[jekylisland]

There exists both Article I courts which practice admiralty, and Article III courts which practice common law. The judge decides which one he is presiding over based on your paperwork and your actions. He is the referee, he looks to you to see which game he is calling.

Let's say you want to sue a bank because it turned FRN's over to the IRS because of a Notice of Levy. If you submit your paperwork to US District court as a Living Soul acting pro se, seeking FRN's. You will lose "for failure to state a cliam upon which relief can be granted" 12(b)(c)3. Why? Your paperwork went to an Article I court, legal fiction court, and you went in as a Man/Woman of substance. They cannot deal with substance because they are a fiction. They never heard any of your claims because they couldn't, thus 12bc3.

If you submit your paperwork to the District Court of the United States of America, your case will be heard by an Article III judge (most likely retired), and you can state a common law claim. Be careful not to ask for FRN's in your Remedy because you are substance and the FRN's aren't. The judge can't deal with FRN's, and neither can you.

Law is both form and substance!

You are not under common law jurisdiction you are under another jurisdiction under contract law. Most people do not understand that.

Originally Posted by teneagles

Simple Common Law Question

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am currently involved in a case where an affidavit of truth was served, with "estoppel by acquiescence" claimed after non-rebuttal was achieved through the 20 day rebuttal period.

The estopped party's attorney has now filed a claim in district court to have the estoppel declared void, under the argument that he can find no law that states that the affiant can force a rebuttal period in a common law affidavit.

Having searched for 24 hours everywhere, I also cannot find any common law reference that allows a rebuttal period to an affidavit to be dictated by the affiant, even though I know there should be one, or an affidavit would be meaningless, and the well documented common law defense of "estoppel by acquiescence" would be impossible.

Can anyone steer me to any cites that would either:
1. Show that the affiant has the right to set a rebuttal period on an affidavit -OR-
2. Show where the commonly accepted common law period for rebuttal may be published in law...

Thanks

TE

[teneagles]

Originally Posted by Momo

You are not under common law jurisdiction you are under another jurisdiction under contract law. Most people do not understand that.

The laws of Commerce and all Contract law are the root of all common law, predating the common laws of England to Mosaic Law. While the UCC has gotten much of it codified into state constitutions, it is only a subsection of the entire library of commerce law, and thus common law practices under the maxims of commerce still prevail, IF you can show them. The Affidavit of Truth sets the rules in the preamble, and contracts the acquiescence in the contract terms in the body. This self empowering technique is ages old, except that those who wish to defend against it now are claiming that since it is not codified, and does not have case law empowerment, it holds no merit.

We know this is untrue, but cannot prove it without citation of where it has been upheld. That is what we are looking for now...

[teneagles]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

There are State district courts and United States district courts. In either case your cause seems to have been adjudicated in the common law and so it is res judicata. Unless you entertain the cause in the district court, it cannot be heard there. Ergo I asked:



Were you served a summons? How did you respond to the summons?


Regards,

David Merrill.

Forgive me for not being explicit.

The Plaintiffs have filed a complaint in State District Court. The main jist of the complaint is that I since I filed the Affidavit and Truth as a judgement against my land since it was unrebutted, and since it has no merit in their opinion, I have clouded my title to the land and damaged the land association who is the plaintiff. They go so far as to say I am guilty of conspiracy for talking to my neighbors about what I did.

I responded with a Motion to Dismiss, on the grounds that a Federal Patent had been brought forward into at-law status on the property into my name, on the grounds that the Affidavit of Truth had already put them into estopple, on constitutional grounds of freedom to associate and speech, laches and unclean hands based on timing and specific issues in the Affidavit.

They have countered with a motion to dismiss my motion, because the Land Patent Protections were not included as an issue in their complaint, and that my bringing forward of the Land Patent was finalized after the service of their complaint so provides no protection on the Land. They contend that though Patent is a strong showing of title, no law exists that disallows a previous owner from waiving the Patent Rights for the Assigns after her, through contracting covenants.

They say it doesnt even matter that she did not disclose at sale time that the land was under Federal Patent Protections. She didnt even know herself.

We contend that when she devided the land and placed covenants on it, she collaterally attacked the Patent and the Law, and that she defrauded everyone out of their Patent Rights based on the premis that you cannot make a contract that contravenes a public law, which a Patent is, and that as such the Rights of the Assigns enumerated in that law are to be the same for all subsequent Assigns, as they were for original Patentee.

Their argument is that no case law or ruling exists that supports that an owner of such land cannot contract away the rights of future Assigns. They also counter the estoppel by acquiescense of the Affidavit of Truth filed before their complaint, with the argument that no case law or ruling gives the creator of an Affidavit of Truth right to set an arbitrary response date that forces the acquiescense.

I am currently creating a Motion to Quash their motion on the res judicata of the Patent and the validity of the estoppel, and am running out of time. This of course is their plan. I am but one man to their firm, and have to make a living in the meantime. I really need some good case law arguments about the Patent res judicata of the covenants being invalid after the Patent Procedings even by an owner, and about the setting of the response limits in an affidavit, to make this work...

Comments of help would be appreciated...

[ndusa]

Originally Posted by kgod999

at the beginning of state codes, reference is made to the common law still being in effect , and your federal constitution is intrepreted as common law. to clear up any confusion, i contract them into estoppel in the affidavit.

Common law is not in effect so to speak. If statutory laws provide, there is no claim in common law. (We dont' burn the witch, we convict on degree's of crime, and so forth) Certainly someone should not be convicted and executed for lets say a tie rod giving and you kill five people in the collision.

Perhaps I see things wrong, but thats the way of the system. If you live in a northern state, and try the common law approach, I can promise you a head ache! PROCEDURE, that is the only choice we have, know, learn it, understand it, or all will be lost.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by teneagles

Forgive me for not being explicit.

The Plaintiffs have filed a complaint in State District Court. The main jist of the complaint is that I since I filed the Affidavit and Truth as a judgement against my land since it was unrebutted, and since it has no merit in their opinion, I have clouded my title to the land and damaged the land association who is the plaintiff. They go so far as to say I am guilty of conspiracy for talking to my neighbors about what I did.

This isn't legal advice, but IMHO, the conspiracy allegation is pretty lame and probably designed to deter you or at least reinforce their portrayal of your maneuvers as being frivolous. Some states and courts look very unfavorably on attempts to screw around with land ownership laws, liens, etc.

Originally Posted by teneagles

... that the Affidavit of Truth had already put them into estopple, on constitutional grounds of freedom to associate and speech, laches and unclean hands based on timing and specific issues in the Affidavit... They also counter the estoppel by acquiescense of the Affidavit of Truth filed before their complaint, with the argument that no case law or ruling gives the creator of an Affidavit of Truth right to set an arbitrary response date that forces the acquiescense.

They are correct about that.

Affidavits of truth have gained some interest because they seem so simple and allegedly let people put the other party on notice with a deadline and tacit acceptance, but they have no force of law when applied as you've attempted and have resulted in sanctions and even contempt citations.

You might want to research some local cases involving such things before you push it far enough to have penalties imposed.

[mrg]

You are replying to one post out of seventeen in a thread that is a year old?

"The Picture" should go:

here?

[palani]

Originally Posted by Dominion_666

I do not see one ting in here about enforcing a time table. Looks like you are just posting what you know regardless if it is applicable. Way to go.

The poster asked for

1. Show that the affiant has the right to set a rebuttal period on an affidavit -OR-
2. Show where the commonly accepted common law period for rebuttal may be published in law...


Do you have a reading problem Palani?

The closest you get is a maxim about slothful people. Did you assume that just because the subject of it is related to time it somehow is setting a time table?

What a waste your post is. If this gentleman goes into court with what you posted he can expect to lose, look ;like an ass, appear to all to be out of his league just for starters.

Before you mouth off take the time to consider that your uneducated erroneous posts might actually hurt someone.

I responded within hours of the opening of the thread and was not rebutted. You are responding over a year later. I posted in a timely manner and you are a year late and over half a bubble off plumb. That would simply make you merely a third party intervenor, a role you appear to be comfortable in.

Thank you for establishing the necessity of a timely response for the group, Codee.