In keeping with the general ignorance about Common Law Courts, I got this one in my box today:
“Today I have listened to Sir David Andrew talk with Angela Stark on talkshoe and he said that it is VERY wrong to use the term Common Law Courts because he said they do not exist. Many People have been jailed by using tern Common Law Courts he said.
He said that we should use “COURTS OF COMMON LAW” Instead.
.
Not necessarily so . . .
.
Common Law Courts are courts operating on the land jurisdiction. Courts of Common Law are operating on the jurisdiction of the sea —- any time you see the word “of” you are talking about an incorporated, secondary entity operating in international jurisdiction. (“of” = “belonging to…”)
Common Law Court = Land Jurisdiction = Ohio State
Courts of Common Law = Sea Jurisdiction = State(s) of Ohio
The reason “citizens of the United States” (that is, territories and District of Columbia) get in trouble when they try to operate “Common Law Courts” is that they only have access to “Courts of Common Law“.
We, who claim our State National political status under Article IV, Section 2 of the Federal Constitution get in trouble if we try to operate “Courts of Common Law” because we only have access to “Common Law Courts”.
It depends, therefore, on the audience. If Sir David is talking to a bunch of Puerto Ricans, he is exactly right. If he is talking to Americans asserting their birthright status, he’s 180 degrees wrong.
5 comments:
Great explanation. So,the people are not citizens of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, right? We are united states citizens,right?
Anna is absolutely right and the title: "Sir," in Sir David, ought to tell you something. Also, as Anna says the significance of the word "of" means belonging to, property of, etc. I am NOT property of or belong to anybody or anything!
I agree....
Sovereign immunity means at the appeal and higher levels, existing 'before' the state constitution is written. Indian Tribes have tribal immunity for the tribe and sovereign immunity for the tribe because they can show their existence before the Constitution for the United States was written and before the constitution for the state is written.
Ask-[King] questions.
Did we exist before the Constitution / any constitution was written?
The people who wrote the constitution were sovereign, so how can their writing such document remove the sovereignty of the people who are here after?
Did our life exist before now, or that time, or did we just pop here through some cosmic accident to live a few 10's of years and die, or do we live forever?
If the Divine Creator gave life to man, like the lighting of an olympic torch, does that life carry to the next life, and the next life, like the lighting of that olympic torch from torch to torch across a country is the same light when it reaches its destination?
Who are we? Are we statutory, and are we common?
If I am a life, and I am an extension of the life of my parents, who are an extension of the life of their parents, who are an extension of the life...and so on, then can I say I exist before the writing of the Constitution included in the lives that were used to create me?
Also courts have gone through the process in appeals court to link the people with the statutory person, but legislatively defining the statutory person as a natural person, and the natural person as a human being, and a human being as a species of the primate, and then deciding the legislature was not determining the rules for the behavior of primates, so they extend it to the people.
All of the following is stated in this case:
State v. Bainard, 199 P.3d 460, 148 Wn. App. 93 (Wash. App., 2009)
Former RCW 9A.48.020(1) (1981).
¶ 35 The term "human being" is not defined by the statute. "In the absence of a statutory
definition, we will give the term its plain and ordinary meaning ascertained from a standard dictionary." State v. Sullivan, 143 Wash.2d 162, 175, 19 P.3d 1012 (2001) (footnote omitted). In the context of the statute, the term "human" means "having some of the characteristics of a living person." WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1100 (1993). A being is "conscious or mortal existence: LIFE." Id. at 199, 19 P.3d 1012. The common and ordinary definition of human being is then a living person.
¶ 36 According to the State, because the term "human being" can refer to living or
extinct members of the primate family, the term includes dead persons. Respondent/Cross-
Appellant's Br. at 20. The legislature would be surprised to learn it wrote a first degree arson statute to protect monkey bones — as long as the bones did not participate in causing the fire. This is the type of absurd result we attempt to avoid in a commonsense analysis. Tingey, 159 Wash.2d at 664, 152 P.3d
1020. Equally absurd is the notion that a dead body would participate in a crime.
...
...
The Kingsley court also examined the dictionary definition:
Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary 883 (2d ed.1973) states the initial
definition of the adjective "human" as: "1. of or characteristic of a person or persons, such as people have. 2. having the form or nature of a person; that is a person; consisting of people."
In defining the word "human" as a noun, it states the definition as "a human being," and in
defining the word "being" as a noun, it states the initial definition as: "1. existence; the state of existing; living; life." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary 168. Absent a clear indication from the legislature to the contrary, we must conclude that in the context of [Kan. Stat. Ann. §] 21-3719, a human being is a living person. Id. ¶
40 The Kingsley court's reasoning is sound. There is no rational basis to interpret the
term "human being" as anything other than a living person in the context of the first degree arson statute. RCW 9A.48.020(1)(c).
All of the above is stated in this case:
State v. Bainard, 199 P.3d 460, 148 Wn. App. 93 (Wash. App., 2009)
In other words, the courts have been working to remove some of the protections we have regardless of whether you use the word common law or common law.
:-)
Post a Comment