Are you one of the Elitists?

[rottweiler]

Here is the law:

10. Defendant JOSEPH J. SMITH failed to file tax returns for tax years 2001, 2002, 2003 and failed to report and account for income received during those years, even though he was required to do so.

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

I believe he is saying that unless the "law" names the sovereign specifically, it can't be used against Her or Him in a court of record as the plaintiff. I had to read it twice to catch what was being said. Also knowing about sovereign immunity and perogatives of the King help.

Regards,
netwrkranger

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

Here is the law:

10. Defendant JOSEPH J. SMITH failed to file tax returns for tax years 2001, 2002, 2003 and failed to report and account for income received during those years, even though he was required to do so.

Correction is needed to be understood. The statement you have displayed above is not the 'law', but rather an 'accusatory statement'. The accusatory statement must be based upon the 'law'. Even in the accusatory statement, no reference (as indicated by your text) is made in reference to any 'law' citation.

Jerry Carlos

Edit: also you mention by reference to the pages 3 - 10, at the bottom of page 10, there is a reference to a particular USC. Others will argue with me on this. When a Statute book plainly states that the contents thereof are merely "prima facie evidence of the law", the question still stands, 'where is the law'? Statutes, codes, rules, and regulations are merely interpretations of the 'law', and have been abated due to their not being in compliance with the 'law'. So we must look at the specific 'law' in order to make a determination as to whether or not there is any contradiction in the 'code'.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

I'm missing your point there Jerry...right around the upper left edge of the document and "the quoted text of the law".

Upper left corner = so and so vs whodunit

"whodunit" is not named in the 'law' per se.

We were speaking specifically in regard to 'privilege' as in their claim that driving is a privilege. 'privus' or privilege also being applicable to 'ones own, individual'.

Jerry Carlos

[rottweiler]

sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be.

No correction is necessary. You are missing out on how the law is decreed by the sovereign in a court of record.

The defense is a counterclaim in a court of record decreeing that the "defendant" is one of the people and the government can not be sovereign over the people.

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

Correction is needed to be understood. The statement you have displayed above is not the 'law', but rather an 'accusatory statement'. The accusatory statement must be based upon the 'law'. Even in the accusatory statement, no reference (as indicated by your text) is made in reference to any 'law' citation. Statutes, codes, rules and regulations are interpretations of the 'law' and subsequently can be in contradiction to the 'law'.

Jerry Carlos

Edit: also you mention by reference to the pages 3 - 10, at the bottom of page 10, there is a reference to a particular USC. Others will argue with me on this. When a Statute book plainly states that the contents thereof are merely "prima facie evidence of the law", the question still stands, 'where is the law'?

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be.

No correction is necessary. You are missing out on how the law is decreed by the sovereign in a court of record.

The defense is a counterclaim in a court of record decreeing that the "defendant" is one of the people and the government can not be sovereign over the people.

Don't know about your state, but here in Florida, there is one thing consistent throughout all the various courts, and that one thing is a requirement of 'general law' as a basis for the fundamental authority called 'jurisdiction'. Without jurisdiction, there is no authority; and that jurisdiction is brought about by what ??? General Law. Now comes the doozie... what is 'General Law' as contrasted to 'Public Law'?

“(b) JURISDICTION.--The supreme court:
(1) Shall hear appeals from final judgments of trial courts imposing the death penalty and from decisions of district courts of appeal declaring invalid a state statute or a provision of the state constitution.
(2) When provided by general law, shall hear appeals from final judg ….”
“(b) JURISDICTION.--
(1) District courts of appeal shall have jurisdiction to hear appeals, that may be taken as a matter of right, from final judgments or orders of trial courts, including those entered on review of administrative action, not directly appealable to the supreme court or a circuit court. They may review interlocutory orders in such cases to the extent provided by rules adopted by the supreme court.
(2) District courts of appeal shall have the power of direct review of administrative action, as prescribed by general law. “

“(b) JURISDICTION.--The circuit courts shall have original jurisdiction not vested in the county courts, and jurisdiction of appeals when provided by general law.”

“b) JURISDICTION.--The county courts shall exercise the jurisdiction prescribed by general law. Such jurisdiction shall be uniform throughout the state.”


BTW.. the above cites are from the Florida Constitution Article V.

Jerry Carlos

Edit:
Even the executive department has something to say about the 'law';

"SECTION 6. Executive departments.--All functions of the executive branch of state government shall be allotted among not more than twenty-five departments, exclusive of those specifically provided for or authorized in this constitution. The administration of each department, unless otherwise provided in this constitution, shall be placed by law under the direct supervisio......."

One more BTW: I just noticed your choice of language above "You are missing out on how the law is decreed by the sovereign in a court of record."

Because the emphasis you placed on pages 3-10 were all accusatory statement made by the plaintiff or the agent of the plaintiff, then are you suggesting that it is always the 'Plaintiff' that has the capacity to make a decree of 'law'? Then you mention a counterclaim... so now we have 'two' sovereigns making a decree of 'law' and it is up to the judge then to decide on which one the judge likes the best?????? Hmmmm . I wonder how the judge will rule when the first plaintiff was his/her brother/sister of the country club?

[rottweiler]

Thanks for giving me a chance to discuss what I have been paraphrasing/plagerizing from William Thorton's website.

I don't believe there is any difference between the "general law" and "public law". I believe that neither are common law.

"When the word "law" is used without qualification, then it means common law. An "attorney at law" means one who practices common law (notwithstanding the fact that modern attorneys are not trained about the
subject). An "attorney in equity" is one who practices before an equity court. In the U.S. 99.99999% of all proceedings are in equity, which is why the judges may take liberties."

"Statutes are expressions of will from the legislature. To keep you confused, they append the word "law" to it. Naturally, you are supposed to then believe that statutory law is the same as and equal to common
law (it isn't). Codes are nothing more than a collection of statutes and other rules arranged by subject instead of being arranged by date."

"Law beats statutes; statutes beat codes."

"A judge exercises his discretion. Because he is authorized by the statutes to exercise his discretion, most appeals of judges' decisions will fail. The appellate courts generally will not second guess a trial court's use of discretion."

""Nisi prius court" is a court which will proceed unless a party objects. The agreement to proceed is obtained from the parties first."

"The nisi prius courts are such as are held for the trial of issues of fact before a jury and one presiding judge. In America the phrase was formerly used to denote the forum (whatever may be its statutory name) in which the
cause was tried to a jury, as distinguished from the appellate court."

"It is a matter of right that one may demand to be tried in a court of record. By sheer definition, that means that the court must proceed according to the common law (not the statutory law). The only way that a court can suspend that right is by the prior agreement of the
parties. For tactical reasons the state prefers to proceed according to statutory law rather than common law. The only way it can do that is to obtain the prior agreement from the parties. That is the primary (but
hidden) purpose of the arraignment procedure. During arraignment the court offers three choices for pleading (guilty, not guilty, nolo contendre). But all three choices lead to the same jurisdiction, namely
a statutory jurisdiction, not a common law jurisdiction. That is to say, the question to be decided is whether or not the statute was violated, not whether the common law was violated."

"Decision of a "court of record" may not be appealed.
It is binding on ALL other courts."

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

Don't know about your state, but here in Florida, there is one thing consistent throughout all the various courts, and that one thing is a requirement of 'general law' as a basis for the fundamental authority called 'jurisdiction'. Without jurisdiction, there is no authority; and that jurisdiction is brought about by what ??? General Law. Now comes the doozie... what is 'General Law' as contrasted to 'Public Law'?

“(b) JURISDICTION.--The supreme court:
(1) Shall hear appeals from final judgments of trial courts imposing the death penalty and from decisions of district courts of appeal declaring invalid a state statute or a provision of the state constitution.
(2) When provided by general law, shall hear appeals from final judg ….”
“(b) JURISDICTION.--
(1) District courts of appeal shall have jurisdiction to hear appeals, that may be taken as a matter of right, from final judgments or orders of trial courts, including those entered on review of administrative action, not directly appealable to the supreme court or a circuit court. They may review interlocutory orders in such cases to the extent provided by rules adopted by the supreme court.
(2) District courts of appeal shall have the power of direct review of administrative action, as prescribed by general law. “

“(b) JURISDICTION.--The circuit courts shall have original jurisdiction not vested in the county courts, and jurisdiction of appeals when provided by general law.”

“b) JURISDICTION.--The county courts shall exercise the jurisdiction prescribed by general law. Such jurisdiction shall be uniform throughout the state.”


BTW.. the above cites are from the Florida Constitution Article V.

Jerry Carlos

Edit:
Even the executive department has something to say about the 'law';

"SECTION 6. Executive departments.--All functions of the executive branch of state government shall be allotted among not more than twenty-five departments, exclusive of those specifically provided for or authorized in this constitution. The administration of each department, unless otherwise provided in this constitution, shall be placed by law under the direct supervisio......."

[rottweiler]

There are no judges in a court of record, only magistrates. They don't "rule" or make decisions, the sovereign does.

"The only difference between an action at law and a counterclaim in a court of record is that the original parties have their identifications changed. The defendant becomes the counterplaintiff, and the plaintiff becomes the counterdefendant. Other than that, the counterclaim is written the same as an action at law."

"A court of record proceeds according to the common law. It is not a criminal court and it is not a civil court; those two courts are statutory courts, not common law courts."



What the counterclaim will do is basically serve as a timely objection to the claims of sovereignty and jurisdiction by the governement. The government can only be sovereign over the people when the people fail to object timely. See my latest signature.

The counterclaim must be dealt with first before the government's case can go forward.

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

One more BTW: I just noticed your choice of language above "You are missing out on how the law is decreed by the sovereign in a court of record."

Because the emphasis you placed on pages 3-10 were all accusatory statement made by the plaintiff or the agent of the plaintiff, then are you suggesting that it is always the 'Plaintiff' that has the capacity to make a decree of 'law'? Then you mention a counterclaim... so now we have 'two' sovereigns making a decree of 'law' and it is up to the judge then to decide on which one the judge likes the best?????? Hmmmm . I wonder how the judge will rule when the first plaintiff was his/her brother/sister of the country club?

[Jerry Pitts]

Rather going into yet another long discussion of the varying thoughts that are conceivable on the subject(s) you brought up, and neither agreeing 100% or attempting rebuttal at that same 100% level; let me say this. You are right... public law and general law are not the same as common law.

The term 'common law' from my cognizance of the term, does not mean 'case law' nor does it mean 'judge-made-law'. "Case Law" and "judge made law" (which is based on the prior decisions of cases preceding the instant case) removes the ability of the instant case to be tried upon its' own 'merits'. No Two cases are so identical that they should be weighed out by the standards established in another case or a hundred other cases. Are any two murders identical? How about any two bank robberies?

There is only one pragmatic absolute in life, and that is "we will all live until we die; anything in between is completely nebulous." Thus no two cases are alike and the merits of one are more than likely going to be distinctly different from that of another. The 'goodness' of one mortal cannot be the measure that diminishes the goodness of another mortal.

Common Law as practiced today is a perversion.

Jerry Carlos

[Thom. Jefferson's ill]

This is worthy notice. Would make a great quote for my signature.

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

Common Law as practiced today is a perversion.

Jerry Carlos

I am trying to understand how to remain in a supreme or superior standing at all times if I were ever presented in a court of law. I am of the belief that if one is to be truly sovereign the only standing in law would be common. Am I correct in assuming this?

What I think is cracking my egg is jurisdiction. When no court exists within the common structure to hear the case properly without trying to use trickery to induce you into an inferior position. Meaning no court today has jurisdiction to hear a true common law case. Am I correct in assuming this?

I am just a simple man and this stuff is blowing my mind, I love the invigoration.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Thom. Jefferson's ill

I am trying to understand how to remain in a supreme or superior standing at all times if I were ever presented in a court of law. I am of the belief that if one is to be truly sovereign the only standing in law would be common. Am I correct in assuming this?

Your question above is based upon a personal 'belief' system, and I cannot answer any question that pertains to a foreign and un-defined belief system. That system is yours and you will have to answer those type questions.

Originally Posted by Thom. Jefferson's ill

What I think is cracking my egg is jurisdiction. When no court exists within the common structure to hear the case properly without trying to use trickery to induce you into an inferior position. Meaning no court today has jurisdiction to hear a true common law case. Am I correct in assuming this?

When a man or woman are found to be making 'assumptions' ("assuming"), there is no right or wrong, as again, assumptions are based on personal 'belief systems'. You are free to make whatever 'assumptions' you desire. Though be mindful of the fact that often times, some assumptions will carry with them the capacity of creating torts, which you being the cause (via your assumption) of the tort, you would also be liable for any damages that might incur.

Originally Posted by Thom. Jefferson's ill

I am just a simple man and this stuff is blowing my mind, I love the invigoration.

Please do not think my comments above as being evasive. They are my true 'belief' in regard to attempting to correct someone on their personal belief. In many discussions on this forum, I have stated that men and women are free to 'believe' as they desire. In regard to the question, you might also want to check out the other thread where this topic is also discussed "Legislation from the bench is Common Law?"

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.