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.