Credit River Decision

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

This all comes down to whether there various states-corporation are sovereign over the respective territories.

Ultimately a jural society counts if its decisions are respected.

It's a question of political power. Time establishes the answer there, things get ratified by convention.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by Extramural

Third, Dog,

How can an equity or "legal" court deal with Common law matters?

Dear Extramural:

Many people who post here do not seem to understand what the common law actually is. Simply put, it is this: judge made law. Also known as case law or precedent.

The common law is not something that exists on its own, like the laws of physics. The laws of physics are what they are, and it is up to humans to discern what they are. Thanks to men like Newton and Einstein, our understanding of them has improved over time.

But the common law is the creation of human beings...judges, to be precise. Although it's a user-edited website and therefore not authoritative, I think that wikipedia gives a pretty good description in its article "common law":

In common law legal systems, the law is created and/or refined by judges: a decision in the case currently pending depends on decisions in previous cases and affects the law to be applied in future cases. When there is no authoritative statement of the law, common law judges have the authority and duty to "make" law by creating precedent.[1] The body of precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions. In future cases, when parties disagree on what the law is, an "ideal" common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases, it will decide as a "matter of first impression." Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts under the principle of stare decisis.

In practice, common law systems are considerably more complicated than the "ideal" system described above. The decisions of a court are binding only in a particular jurisdiction, and even within a given jurisdiction, some courts have more power than others. For example, in most jurisdictions, decisions by appellate courts are binding on lower courts in the same jurisdiction and on future decisions of the same appellate court, but decisions of non-appellate courts are only non-binding persuasive authority. Interactions between common law, constitutional law, statutory law and regulatory law also give rise to considerable complexity. However stare decisis, the principle that similar cases should be decided according to similar rules, lies at the heart of all common law systems.

The reported decisions of the Minnesota Supreme Court overturning the rather insane blatherings of Justice of the Peace Mahoney ARE common law. They create binding precedent on every lower court in that state. Other courts may look at them as persuasive precedent.

As to law vs. equity...the strict separation of courts of law (that award money damages) and those of equity (which issue injunctions and other non-monetary forms of relief), as was maintained in England centuries ago, has largely been done away with in this country. Typically, every county has a court of general jurisdiction that can grant relief both in law and in equity. In Georgia, these are called Superior Courts, and every county has one. Inferior courts, such as the Justice of the Peace Court involved in Credit River, have only such jurisdiction as the constitution and statute laws of their states confer upon them. And that is one reason the Minnesota Supreme Court vacated Mahoney's decision...he had completely exceeded the jurisdictional authority of a Justice of the Peace court, since Minnesota law had for over 100 years at that point (since 1861) forbidden Justice of the Peace courts to grant equitable relief.

I hope this explanation has worked to enlighten you.

[Lawdog]

DiM's fetish for the first Judiciary Act, which was passed by Congress in 1789, notwithstanding, a simple word search of the current United States Code shows only two instances of the word "suitors" appearing at all.

From title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure:

28 USC § 1333. Admiralty, maritime and prize cases
PART IV - JURISDICTION AND VENUE

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of:

(1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.

(2) Any prize brought into the United States and all proceedings for the condemnation of property taken as prize.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 931; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, Sec. 79, 63 Stat. 101.)

And from Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters:

33 USC § 2751. Savings provision
SUBCHAPTER III - MISCELLANEOUS

(a) Cross-references

A reference to a law replaced by this Act, including a reference in a regulation, order, or other law, is deemed to refer to the corresponding provision of this Act.

(b) Continuation of regulations

An order, rule, or regulation in effect under a law replaced by this Act continues in effect under the corresponding provision of this Act until repealed, amended, or superseded.

(c) Rule of construction

An inference of legislative construction shall not be drawn by reason of the caption or catch line of a provision enacted by this Act.

(d) Actions and rights

Nothing in this Act shall apply to any rights and duties that matured, penalties that were incurred, and proceedings that were begun before August 18, 1990, except as provided by this section, and shall be adjudicated pursuant to the law applicable on the date prior to August 18, 1990.

(e) Admiralty and maritime law

Except as otherwise provided in this Act, this Act does not affect -

(1) admiralty and maritime law; or

(2) the jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States with respect to civil actions under admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.

(Pub. L. 101-380, title VI, Sec. 6001, Aug. 18, 1990, 104 Stat. 554.)

Laws change. It's important to keep up with the times.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Many people who post here do not seem to understand what the common law actually is. Simply put, it is this: judge made law. Also known as case law or precedent.

And that is where we gotcha Lawdog. In 1938 the common law was reset. It became a blend of equity and law - which is no longer competent common law.

A good example is the typical foreclosure of a home. Supposing the original note is demanded by statute - by "law" so to speak. Right there in the hearing the "judge" will promise that the statute will prevail and then in the same breath rule in equity - foreclose anyway, even if the mortgage company has made no effort to comply with the law. In this transcript for instance, the mortgage company just makes a false promise to provide the Note (attached). Judge Roy Bean explained that he simply looked for evidence of payments, and that the payments stopped.

Good thing this is coming to an abrupt end with Richard Boyko and other rulings that the plaintiff has to show the mortgage on that particular property. Sadly not fast enough and for many, too late.

And as far as Lawdog's assertions about admiralty, all debt arises in admiralty - bottomry. I usually just request the attorney please explain how Joe O'hare in the Mile High City would be so plainly in the admiralty signing a very typical warrant...

http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...s/Warrant1.gif
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...s/Warrant2.gif

But Lawdog's attorney stance is too routine for me to even bother reading. Any smart attorney I have shown this to knows better than to try responding but the ones who have tell me that it is a routine in rem action that takes on the form of the admiralty rules - it is not actually admiralty. - What a crock!

The warrant swept at least 20 accounts in rural Oregon alone - all under the care of one trustee. In the event of the one suitor, he fired the trustee and tried to convince the trustee to have me handle it - in admiralty. The suitor had all his money back in about a week with penalties and letters of apology for bounced checks. The other people who went through the trustee and attorney representation had to come beg, let the IRS and anybody else get a piece of their life savings, and maybe get some of their funds returned.

So you understand the sleezy nature of Lawdog's assertions. And you understand why he gets so upset whenever I show common law assize from the superior venue of Credit River township. Falsity is much more difficult to defend than truth.

Like I pointed out, the State of Minnesota never had any authority to rescind Credit River Township's right to assemble in juries. And Farmer says something quite insightful:

Originally Posted by Farmer

This all comes down to whether there various states-corporation are sovereign over the respective territories.

Ultimately a jural society counts if its decisions are respected.

It's a question of political power. Time establishes the answer there, things get ratified by convention.

This is where it is important to remind Madeline that Jerome Daly lived in his home for many years following the Order and Decree. I believe it was 1992 when he finally moved to California. All that "overturning" and disbarring was an ongoing dog and pony show.

Here is a great example. Bruce Clyde SMITH is free from harassment about these charges. However even though the Instruction was treated as an In Forma Pauperis motion, that was rejected, the Tenth Circuit could not help but take a jab at the assize that presided and removed the cause from the state and federal court systems.


http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/opinions/06/06-6238.pdf

Creatively, but frivolously, he does argue that the case should now be removed from this court to a court of his own making, the “one supreme Court,” apparently established by Mr. Smith and his associates on September 4, 2006 (after the district court remanded his case to the state court). There is no legal basis for that request.

and ending with:

Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.

It was an Instruction for Removal to the higher court. Either way, since the Tenth Circuit justices were treating it as a motion to go forward with no filing fee - they had absolutely no business commenting on the case if they were denying it could get into their court on that denial.


Any attorney understands:

COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES … 136. When a seizure has been voluntarily abandoned, it loses its validity, and no jurisdiction attaches to any court, unless there be a new seizure. 10 Wheat. 325; 1 Mason, 361. First Judiciary Act, September 24, 1789. Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856.

So Jerome Daly had no recourse about them saying they overturned the case. He was left to live in peace. He was not involved once they disbarred him. He went silent to the Crown Attorners no matter what he said. When he moved to California he left a letter in the jacket so that people could discuss this with him. But he is dead now.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. DiMwitted attorneys are quite useful around here. I forgot that Title 28 U.S.C. §1333 in the notations confirms what I have been saying about the common law post 1938 being incompetent by blending law and equity.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...000-notes.html


The “saving to suitors” clause in sections 41 (3) and 371 (3) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., was changed by substituting the words “any other remedy to which he is otherwise entitled” for the words “the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it.” The substituted language is simpler and more expressive of the original intent of Congress and is in conformity with Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abolishing the distinction between law and equity.

But take a close look. The Congress even recently amended the wording to get rid of "common law" altogether! - But just as important, the Congress admits it could not stray from the intent of the original intent of Congress. Think about that for a moment. That means the corporate State of Minnesota had no authority pass legislation degrading the Credit River Township's right to assemble in common law.

[Lawdog]

If DiM's mastery of the law is so great, how does he explain this?


from http://www.trial.com/Blogger/2001_08...logarchive.htm

Saturday, August 18, 2001


Judge casts out man's suit against Jesus
Karen Abbott -- Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer -- Aug. 18, 2001

David Merrill and his motor scooter are really unhappy with Jesus Christ. They sued him in federal court Wednesday.


Denver U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham was really unhappy that they did.


He threw the case out Thursday.


Nottingham's written order called Merrill's lawsuit a "rambling, nonsensical, incoherent blotch on this court's docket."


The judge then quoted a one-line book review by the satirical writer Ambrose Bierce.


"The covers of this book are too far apart," Bierce wrote.


"So, too," wrote Nottingham, "were the beginning and end of this pleading."


Merrill, 43, declined to be interviewed.


He and his motor scooter -- named as plaintiffs in the filing -- also sued the United Nations, the El Paso County sheriff, the Colorado Springs police chief and the Sanhedrin -- the highest court and council of the ancient Jewish nation at the time of Jesus' crucifixion.


The lawsuit is laced with obscure legal terms. It also contains references to Dutch settlement in North America; Nazis; Jews; obscure mathematical texts; a speech in May by President Bush about Social Security; and some darkly mysterious organizations whose secret agents allegedly hold powerful positions.


A careful reading, however, disclosed that Merrill didn't sue the real Jesus Christ.


He sued someone he thought was posing as the savior in a prank telephone call in May 2000, when Merrill had been given 10 days to redeem his confiscated car.


"This man addressed me by name and told me that he, 'Jesus Christ' did not like to see 10-day notices, that they made him look bad," Merrill's lawsuit said.


Then Merrill's motor scooter was seized on grounds that he was driving it with expired license plates, no proof of insurance and no driver's license. Merrill has a history of similar driving-related charges in El Paso County.


Convicted by a jury, he spent some time in jail. When he didn't pay impound charges to redeem his motor scooter, it was scheduled to be sold.


Merrill wants it back. He also wants $5,000 for his confiscated car. He wants several other things, too, and if he doesn't get them, he wants $12.6 million from someone working at the New York Stock Exchange.


"Jesus Christ of Nazareth paid the ransom in blood for me on the cross and my motorcycle is part of the eternal inheritance in general," Merrill wrote in his complaint.


He signed it with his thumbprint.

Gee, Dave, what happened with the jury trial? Why couldn't you "abate the nuisance" to make the prosecution go away before it even reached the trial stage? And why couldn't you convince a jury of the soundness of your legal theories?

Your blather may sound good to those who don't know any better, but in the real world, your theories don't amount to a hill of beans.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

If DiM's mastery of the law is so great, how does he explain this?


from http://www.trial.com/Blogger/2001_08...logarchive.htm



Gee, Dave, what happened with the jury trial? Why couldn't you "abate the nuisance" to make the prosecution go away before it even reached the trial stage? And why couldn't you convince a jury of the soundness of your legal theories?

Your blather may sound good to those who don't know any better, but in the real world, your theories don't amount to a hill of beans.

Thanks for the chuckle Lawdog;

Like the Suijuris readers cannot discern that you have wandered far afield and into what is to me ancient history as far as my learning curve goes.

The motorscooter is a completely independent admiralty seizure. I have already abated traffic matters even in that same "judge's" courtroom. With nothing to lose. I somehow felt that if I could win at trial, she would be compelled to return the motorscooter. Untrue. The impound manager is another court operating on presumed forfeitures in rem - in admiralty.

Previously in her courtroom, I refused for cause her "conviction" immediately and refused her order to report to jail on Monday by 5:00 pm. I showed at the jail with a witness and showed that the name on the docket was not my name. The undersheriff got all upset and was waving his arms around shouting, "You want me to arrest you? I am not going to do it!!"

It was hilarious.

So with the same witness I went to her courtroom the next morning and when the clerk came out to boot the computer I said, "Tell Her Full Name superior court is here." Then when she came out of chambers and everybody rose but me, that was the only time for the next two hours she looked at me. Me and my witness left the courthouse and the case died then and there.

So let that be a lesson to learn. Before she executed sentence in the article, which I think deserves a little discussion, she recessed for no reason for ten minutes. That was my queue to get up and leave but I wanted the motorcycle back and was too confident that she would back down. But because of the first incident, when she came back, on went the cuffs...

Live and learn.

As far as the article goes, if you bothered to read it, get this line to ponder:

A careful reading, however, disclosed that Merrill didn't sue the real Jesus Christ.

Right there you have it. The article is sensationalism for the Crown attitude that I believe has long since gotten the reporter fired. She is making out that I sued in good faith, Jesus Christ the Christian Messiah - but admits near the end that is false premise.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Laws change.

It's important to keep up with the times.

More cheap talk from a third-string propagandandist?

If a Law is a Law by the definition of Law it cannot change.

There is only One, in reality.

Law is immutable, is it not?

Lawdog's use of the term "law" is a propagandist figure of speech, a scam conjured up by despots and tyrants ages ago and repeated over and over until the term has been accepted as Law by great numbers of ignorant people.

"...keep up with the times?"

Read Solomon.

Lawdog likely has little knowledge of what "time" is, and, worse, even less knowledge of what "time" is not.

The crux of quite a number of Lawdog's propaganda pieces are predicated upon, and based in purely tactical ad hominem fallacious logical rhetorical artifice.

Is Justice Mahoney's opinion "insane blatherings" in reality, such, simply because "Lawdog" calls them that?

All Mahoney did, essentially, was to publish the Esquire Banker's own testimony.

The jury had no choice, really, but to rely upon the Esquire's own testimony.

When did the jury's decision itself get "overturned?"

When, where, how, and why, precisely, and with specific particularity did the "law" that Lawdog uses to apply a derisive and openly ad hominem personal attack to David Merrill "change," in such a way that it is so repugnant to you that he uses it?

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Fortunately many people here DO, in fact KNOW what the "common law" "actually is."

The use of the term "seem" is the "tell," of a wagerer, which is basically what Lawdog (a wagerer) professes (or what professes Lawdog?).

Lawdog will not "understand" any "law."

He knows better, and he obviously
will not/cannot profess to comprehend what "the common law actually is;" Lawdog is a propagandist as well as a speculative wagerer.

COMMON LAW. That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. See Law, common.

LAW, COMMON. The common law is that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people.

It has never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, which is the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law.

It has never been reduced to writing; by this expression, however, it is not meant that all those laws are at present merely oral, or communicated from former ages to the present solely by word of mouth, but that the evidence of our common law is contained in our books of Reports, and depends on the general practice and judicial adjudications of our courts.

Bouvier's

Is "judge" "court?"

In a republic the administration of affairs is open to all CITIZENS©.

A court is a republican institution where affairs are administered.

You must administer your affairs of court yourself or waive this right.

MOST PEOPLE thought that John signed the Great Charter of English Liberties and became good King John afterwards.

This is wrong.

As soon as John got the rebel barons to disband their armies he waged holy war against them for the rest of his life.

OUR CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA must be defended and we must defend it to the best of our ability.

When you invoke a court you must assert your jurisdiction to hold it and cannot let the judge usurp your judicial power.

This means you do not pay an attorney fee to him to conduct your court, you do not submit documents to him for his approval, you do not motion him to move your court, you deny everything he has tried to file and you strike anything that he has attempted to enter of record.

He will not like you.

You are not trying to make friends with him.

Without the judge you can eject attorneys and enter your own orders including a declaratory judgment if no other party appears for court in person.

If a few of us do this we can be hunted down and exterminated.

If thousands of us do this it may succeed.

I'm telling you how to fight but not promising victory.

[indio007]

The fact is the bank never complained about jurisdiction until after the verdict. The Justice had to deny the appeal with federal reserve notes or he would be dishonoring the jury verdict for the case. This would effectually nullify the jury verdict which is an impossibility. Common Law Juries decide FACTS and LAW. They (the jury) don't even need have a rationale for doing it! They don't have to explain themselves. Should Mahoney been in contempt of the jury and guilty of treason? The Justice has a higher duty to the Constitution than the Minnesota Supreme Court. He didn't take an oath to the Supreme Court! He took to the Constitution. But of course how did it end up? Dismissal with prejudice to both sides.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by indio007

The fact is the bank never complained about jurisdiction until after the verdict. The Justice had to deny the appeal with federal reserve notes or he would be dishonoring the jury verdict for the case. This would effectually nullify the jury verdict which is an impossibility. Common Law Juries decide FACTS and LAW. They (the jury) don't even need have a rationale for doing it! They don't have to explain themselves. Should Mahoney been in contempt of the jury and guilty of treason? The Justice has a higher duty to the Constitution than the Minnesota Supreme Court. He didn't take an oath to the Supreme Court! He took to the Constitution. But of course how did it end up? Dismissal with prejudice to both sides.

He was disbarred because he did take an oath to the Supreme Court of Minnesota. Here it is obvious and in most states - The State Bar Association is actually the State of Colorado Supreme Court!

But you have brought out a great point here. Thanks for that post! I have an interesting comment that relates...

Here is all I look at from judicial standing - a court of competent jurisdiction:

NOTICE...

The current creditor to whom the debt is owed... (has sold the note and is proving the debt by) ...asset backed pass-through certificates (as indicated by that being on the end of their paragraph-long name).

If you request proof of the debt... (asset backed pass-through notes will suffice instead of an original note as provided by law pursuant to this notice).

[If you wish to demand the original note be provided for any foreclosure to proceed, then you must Refuse for Cause this notice to escape judgment against you in equity. The law requiring the original note can only be demanded in common law.]



Regards,

David Merrill.

[marie]

I located over 20 pdf. files having to do with the Credit River Decision. Someone gathered the clerk stamped documents and scanned them in. I haven't taken the time to read through every single file.

From what I have perused, if I have understood correctly, it seemed that while alive Judge Mahoney refused to allow appeals on the Jurys' decision.

Was this court an Article III court?

I am attempting to compress the files into a zip, I would upload them if I were able to access the downloads on this forum (is there a trick? a catch? a secret password?) I do wish admin. would fix it. I have sent an email to the forum 'contact us'...no reply.

That's funny (giggle) ...upload to download...