Anyone reading this need to first comprehend that “Laws, of which there are many kinds”, follow a hierarchy, being stacked on top of each other. We have all heard of statutes, codes, and regulate, rules, all “laws” within a select society. If you’re not in that society they do not pertain to you. You have to volunteer to be “governed” by them.
Beyond “these Laws” that we have been exposed to by “them”, there are other levels of laws that need to be “remembered”. If we would just remember, what we have always known, we could stop learning, and get on to doing. Because these laws are not written, they are the laws of reason, the laws between men. Even The Law, the law of reason, has a set of rules to follow..
Divine Law, Natural Law, the Law of Reason… then everything else in a lower order. To be lawful your law cannot break Divine, or Natural law, as long as it doesn’t, it is the law of your land.
The Law of reason we now call “Common Law”, before that it was known as Feudal Law.. So why the name changes? Because the creators of “their system” try to control everything by naming it. It is one of their beliefs, and so far it has worked out quite well for them. “Why do they call it Marijuana ? , Cause you can’t charge hemp”..
Go look at a dictionary; most any word commonly used today has only been in existence for 500 years or less. Either the original word’s spelling has been changed, or it’s a word derived from a Latin word. In their system, there is only one language recognized.. Latin, high Latin.. the stuff the Pope and Courts use.
When it comes to the definition to use, it depends on the venue it is used in… only a definition for use in Common Law can begin with the words.. “In Law”.. If it says in statute law, or English Common Law.. it is inferior to In Law or In Common Law with no other modifiers allowed. Focus on definitions that say “in Law, or at worst in common law, or feudal law… all others are inferior.
What they gave us is a slave’s language, full of magic words. Common words that have very different meanings depending on the venue. Here is one of my favorites.
The “Legal” definition of Lie: TO LIE. That which is proper, is fit; as, an action on the case lies for an injury committed without force; corporeal hereditaments lie in livery, that is, they pass by livery; incorporeal hereditaments lie in grant, that is, pass by the force of the grant, and without any livery. Vide Lying in grant.
Tell a prosecutor, “that’s a lie”, bingo… magic word, you just agreed that what he said was proper. However words have many meanings, the first part is what it means in an inferior “legal” setting, and the last part of Lie has to do with the common law definition. More on that later.
The point I’m trying to make is when you have an idea what to look for it’s easier to find. Or another way identify the problem(s), and your half way to the answer. When you read a definition or statute etc, that goes on and on.. forget it.. Most definitions that are Lawful are at most a paragraph, and usually much shorter.. (it doesn’t take long to tell the truth).
I know I’ll take a lot of shit for this, but I do believe that “they” do follow the rules. And once you learn the rules instead of arguing the facts, they will honor you.. after all it’s the Law. No source of Law under the Law of Reason no matter what it’s called (Case Law, English Common Law, UCC, US Codes, etc..) can overturn the ruling of “The Court of Record with Final jurisdiction”.. I mean you.
Everything they have done is lawful, and therefore Legal, and it is why you cannot “win” in their system. Under the system of “Legal” this is the power of the Magistrate (Judge):
When an officer acts in both a judicial and ministerial capacity, he may be compelled to perform ministerial acts in a particular way; but when he acts in a judicial capacity, he can only be required to proceed; the manner of doing so is left entirely to his judgment. See 2 Fairf. 377; Bac. Ab. Justices of the Peace, E; 1 Conn. 295; 3 Conn. 107; 9 Conn. 275; 12 Conn. 464; also Judicial; Mandamus; Sheriff (They just told you, you cannot win in any court that uses codified law, (their court), this is the venue in which the magistrate has “Judicial” authority”).
Late entry: Brothers and sisters that have responded via email thanks for pointing out to me that the above needs to be stressed.. I know this now because so many of your responses keep referring to “them not following” their own laws, statutes, codes etc.. They don’t have to… read the definition again… “he acts in a judicial capacity (Judge), …he can only be required to proceed; the manner of doing so is left entirely to his judgment. Where does it say he has to follow a stinkn statue? Have you ever heard them say…”In my court”… that what it is.. his court… so do not go to his court, take yours to him.. The statutes are just so many rabbit holes for you to chase..
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.. It’s insane to go to their jurisdiction, the moment you walk in you are an incompetent. Stop being double minded.
At any level in the “Legal system, including UCC and international law”, it’s up to the discretion of the magistrate, and why they can keep coming and coming, and coming… So do you want to go to “their” court, as described above, or “be the court”, the Supreme Court is talkingw.
However, no statutory or constitutional court (whether it be an appellate or supreme court) can second guess the judgment of a court of record. “The judgment of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it.” Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202 – 203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]
Your court of record, doesn’t follow any written law either, your guide to the law is “reason”, what is reasonable. Since no 2 situations are exactly the same, it would be impossible to write a law that covers them.. (that’s why “they” have over 60,000,000 laws… and still want more).. Statute Law sold itself as the codification of the Common Law.. .. Under common law, or law, you are the Lawmaker.. it’s your wish that makes the law… if you can’t wrap your head around the difference… then go look at as many definitions of common law and sovereign as you need to till it does..
They are talking about you… as a King… a LandLord given a fee simple estate in lands and tenements, by the Ultimate Sovereign being. Something only a people can be.. (try finding the word person in the Bible).. You are the trinity of mind, body and spirit, and the Tribunal of the Court of Record with Final Jurisdiction… No ifs ands or buts… you have final jurisdiction in all cases involving your nation.
Why bring up the bible? Because it shows the two available systems “Lawful and Legal” running side by side. Or you can find it in movies, songs, comedy’s, on a bill board etc.. Clues to the difference and how to choose which one you live under. After all either you can govern yourself, or surly someone will govern you.
Click for audio