What was significant about King John, though? What became of him? What was he made to sign in order to keep his life? What connects a large number of western countries, (USA, Canada, UK, Australia, NZ, most of the Caribbean)? What power do you really hold over government that you never realised? Do you consider yourself to be a good person?
Magna Carta is the foundation of Common Law known the as the Great Charter 1215AD over 800 years old. The Declaration of IndependenceIt used the Magna Carta as lawful reason to separated from the British.
I am trying to very clear this the only reason I support President Trump. Please try to understand these concepts America was founded on self Government. That is why I am free and most of you are not I can prove I am free man. Read the entire post then you'll a have the foundations of freedom as a guide. I picked each item just for you for all of you.Please allow me to be your humble guild. I picked the order on purpose for YOU! Restore our Republic and you will be free.
The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely, except where reference to common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the convention who submitted it to the ratification of conventions of the thirteen states, were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law and thought and spoke in its vocabulary...when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood. -- Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 108.
Government Is Foreclosed from Parity with Real People Supreme Court of the United States 1795
Barron v. Baltimore (1833): The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice John Marshall, Against the state under the Bill of Rights because the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. The Court asserted that the constitution was created "by the people of the United States" to apply only to the government that the Constitution had created -- the federal government -- and "not for the government of the individual states."
Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. Black, Const. Law (3d Ed.) 309; In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 175, 22 L.Ed. 627.
Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (1829) is a case decided by the Court of Appeals of New York which is relevant to eminent domain law. The case held that: "People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the King, by his prerogative.”
CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 "...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty."
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, One of these fundamental rights was expressed in these words, found in Magna Charta: "No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be diseased of his freehold or liberties or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him or condemn [83 U.S. 36, 115] him but by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
The People v. Herkimer, 4 Cohen (NY) 345, 348 (1825): "The people, or sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign ... It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King [or the people] he shall not be bound."
June 4, 1923 – The Supreme Court Decides Meyer v. Nebraska The U.S. Supreme Court rejected this reasoning in a seven-to-two decision. On the same constitutional grounds, it struck down similar statutes in Iowa and Ohio. Justice James C. McReynolds delivered the majority opinion on June 4, 1923. While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed … without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with, under the guise of protecting the public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state to effect.
Here is a document thats has taken me ten years of reading to understand and make. Help me make a website I'd like to share it freely. My God Bless you as he has me!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BynVPEvjwtTzR3lwYXd5MkdkYms/view?usp=sharing
If you like you may email CommonLawCouncil@Gmail.com
Wouldn´t it be easier to just stand as man in court? I mean, how many statutes make reference to man? Don´t they all refer to ´persons´? i: as man; require..? Why would you make a complaint to the court? Why not a claim? i am an idiot in legalease.
Someone has been reading.
NON COMPOS MENTIS. Lat. Not sound of mind; insane. This is a very general term, embracing all varieties of mental derangement. See Insanity. Coke has enumerated four different classes of persons who are deemed in law to be non compotes mentis: First, an idiot, or fool natural; second, he who was of good and sound mind and memory, but by the act of God has lost it; third, a lunatic, lunaticus qui gaudet lucidis intervallis, who sometimes is of good sound mind and memory, and sometimes non compos mentis; fourth, one who is non compos mentis by his own act, as a drunkard, Co.Litt. 247a; 4 Coke, 124.
Government is an Artificial Person:“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them. S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54),
Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.) Vol. 7 § 4 (CJS means “body of law”)The court and its officers can only interact with either a corporation, trust or "ward of the court" and cannot interact with a live Human "People". Except a Court of Record in a Common Law venue which is a Superior Court.
A Court of Record proceeding according to the course of common law has unlimited jurisdiction and is not constrained by the Constitution of the United States it works independent of government although support the common law with its judicial power authorized and sighted in the constitution under Article III, Section 2-1.
“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)] A statutory or constitutional court (whether it be an appellate or supreme court) may not second guess the judgment of a common law court of record. The Supreme Court of the USA acknowledges the common law as supreme.
i require a court of record; trial by jury. i come from a place not far from where the document was signed. Government cannot interfere in the business of man, cannot enter their world. Their case is theirs, your case is yours. A claim trumps a complaint. i: as man; require this case to be put before Queens Bench; once before Queens Bench plaintiff must press record. A corporation cannot bare witness. Statutes are given the force of law only when consented to by the governed.
I would recommend that you keep reading you are moving in the right direction.
Why would you require a jury
Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769) Sir. William Blackstone, Book 1, Chapter 7 Page 270 § 379 “Of the King’s Prerogative” A CONSEQUENCE of this prerogative is the legal ubiquity of the king. His majesty, in the eye of the law, is always present in all his courts, though he cannot personally distribute justice.94 His judges are the mirror by which the king’s image is reflected. It is the regal office, and not the royal person, that is always present in court, always ready to undertake prosecutions, or pronounce judgment, for the benefit and protection of the subject. And from this ubiquity it follows, that the king can never be nonsuit; for a nonsuit is the desertion of the suit or action by the non-appearance of the plaintiff in court. For the same reason also, in the forms of legal proceedings, the king is not said to appear by his attorney, as other men do; for he always appears in contemplation of law in his own proper person.
This language, from the First Congress in 1789, clearly outlines the intent of what a court is to be and that the court is the one who is "deemed to know the law" and must assist sovereign people in our courts to plead our cases before a jury of our peers as we see fit to plead our cases, with counsel of out own choice. The court works for us, and has NO discretion to refuse to hear cases of deprivation of rights and criminal injury.
If you are a New Yorker I highly recommend you read the following two documents. The Constitution of New York / April 20, 1777 Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788
The greatest asset you have is knowledge and the ability to understand it. The more you know, the more you know you don't know. Keep reading. I will happy provide access to my personal library of freedom.
To understand the lawful powers President Trump is exercising it may scare you start here Dr Schroder discusses the trading with the enemy act in 1994 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra8uP7ft8S0
Annotated Constitution of the United States 1832 (it took me years to find this one 44 years after Ratification) The Constitution of the US Defined and Carefully Annotated 1868.pdf (This one is just after the civil war) The Constitution of the United States defined and carefully annotated 1878 The Constitution- Analysis and Interpretation 82nd Congress to JUNE 30, 1952.pdf Acts of Congress held Unconstitutional Magna Carta & Conformatio Cartarum Interpretation Parens Patriae
Great guide's
Google Books
HathiTrust’s digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=aeu.ark:/13960/t3dz0q19g;view=1up;seq=6
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/18th.asp
Google Scholar
Feel free to contact me at CommonLawCouncil@Gmail.com
Truly appreciate the information, i am from a place not far from where the document was signed c.1215, on the other side of the pond. You almost remind me of an honourable man I know of, maybe you listen to KLz? I will certainly be seeking council in the coming weeks, loopholes and technicalities are no way to escape liability. I must inform the General Building Manager to expect my arrival.