Your Nosey Neighbor, the Police and 3 Types of Law
by John-Henry Hill, M.D.
November 18, 2014
I recently read a news article in which a “nosey neighbor” in an up-scale neighborhood called the police to report that the woman next door was allowing her children to play outdoors in their own backyard under the supervision of their nanny, Nikki.
Nikki had been the children’s nanny since there were babies and the children clearly loved Nikki very much. However, the youngest child had the habit of crying loudly just prior to falling asleep. The parents had consulted several pediatricians and neurologists about their behavior, who all stated that the child would “grow out of it”. On the recommendation of one pediatrician, the parents attended “classes” with this infant to learn how to best deal with the situation. It was agreed that it was best to simply let this child cry herself to sleep.
The mother, an attorney, was at work. Nikki (the nanny) wandered inside and outside the house monitoring the children. The neighbor felt that the children should not be outside without their nanny or mother being present outside at all times, especially with the youngest child inside the home crying loudly as she always did just before falling asleep. The police responded, told the “nosey neighbor” that no crime was being committed, then told the Nanny Nikki, the mother and her children that they could continue what they had been doing. The police later stated that they laughed about the incident for the rest of the day.
When I was a child, our response to an interfering neighbor or anyone else would have been, “MYOB” for “Mind your own business!” My father’s response to such interference would have been, “MYOFB” for “Mind your own fucking business!!!”
Under the Common Law and the U.S. Constitution, your children are YOUR PROPERTY. (And the Common Law is the superior law in the U.S. over all other types of law in the U.S. (Equity Law and Maritime-Admiralty Law which are created by men via legislated acts, statutes, codes, regulations, ordinances by-laws, executive decrees, etc.) Your “natural rights” under the Common Law are guaranteed by the Constitution, most especially its “Bill of Rights”.
That the Common Law was and remains today superior to and supersedes Equity and Maritime-Admiralty law – both of which are legislated into existence – has been affirmed again in 1973 by the U.S. Supreme Court:
“The judgment of a court of record [a court operating under the Common Law only; NO statutes allowed] whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] would be. It is as conclusive on this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it.” U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]
However, the Common Law and the Constitution guarantee every adult the “unlimited and unhindered right to contract.” You waive some parental rights to the state when you sign your name (signature) on an Application for a Birth Certificate, immediately after your baby is born and before the mother leaves the hospital. Unknown to most people – especially the nurses and doctors – this SIGNED Application for a Birth Certificate is, in law, a CONTRACT between you (the parents) and the state. Through this process, you have signed over the “ownership” of that child to the state, while keeping only “equitable title” for your child. “Equitable Title” means that you (the parents) have retained the “right of use” for that child, but the state – now has “true title” or “ownership” of that child; and the state can step in any time it wishes (such as “Child Protective Services”, public schools, the police even when NO real “crime” has been committed. (A real “crime” is defined as physical injury to another person or to his property – “no injury means no crime committed.” More accurately, a real “crime” is defined as physical injury to another person’s property – but since you own your own body, your BODY is considered in law to be your property.) The state and its various agencies interfere with parental rights in order to do what the state thinks is best for its property (i.e., your child). After all, you DID sign over ownership of your child by CONTRACT when you signed the “Application for a Birth Certificate” for that child.
Similar situations exist in law in all types of transaction in the U.S. For example, when you purchase a new car, do you truly OWN that car? If you obtained from the car dealership that particular car’s “Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin”, then you have “allodial title” to that new car – meaning you have true ownership of that car. However, in most cases the car dealerships send to your state government the “Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin” for ALL the cars placed on that dealership’s lot. Consequently, when you buy that new car, you obtain ONLY a “Certificate of Title” issued by your state. This “Certificate of Title” – a type of “Equitable Title” for the car does NOT confer true “ownership” to you; it merely confers upon you the “right of use” of that car. Since you are the driving a car actually owned by your state and you possess merely the “right of use” of that car, the state can issue all kinds of rules and regulations to protect the state’s property (the car), such as highway speed limits, yearly car inspections, parking tickets, car insurance, license plates, car registration, etc., plus the payment of a yearly “excise tax” for the privilege of parking your car in your own driveway. How was this all accomplished? By your signature on the CONTRACT you signed when you bought the new car.
A second example is the purchase of a home (whether with cash or via mortgage). Even after the mortgage is completely paid off, do you truly OWN that home and the land? If you the “allodial title” to the house and land, you have true ownership of that house and land. That means that you can do ANYTHING you wish to the house or land WITHOUT the need for any permits from anyone. Why? Because you truly OWN the house and land. That was common practice in the U.S before 1933. However, in most cases you are sent ONLY a “Certificate of Title” by the bank or other lender. And, as above with the new car, this “Certificate of Title” – a type of “Equitable Title” for the house and land does NOT confer true “ownership” to you; it merely confers upon you the “right of use” of that house and land. Since the house and land are actually owned by your state and/or the federal government; AND you possess merely the “right of use” of that house and land, then the local, state and federal governments can issue all kinds of rules and regulations to protect the state’s property (the house and land), such as “minimum building lot sizes”; restrictions on home sizes for particular neighborhoods; home owner’s insurance; property taxes; home inspections for such items as “smoke detectors”, naturally occurring ionizing-radioactive gases emanating from certain types of stone just outside the basement or toxic molds growing within walls; have a well dug for your water supply; for connections to a public water supply and sewer system (if available), special permits to renovate the interior and/or exterior of the house or build additional room(s) onto the house; permits to build a small building such as a “tool shed”, to have a swimming pool built, or even to cut down trees on the land. In some towns, these government-issued restrictions also include such items as: type of lawn allowed (grass, stone garden, etc.); whether you can create a vegetable garden in back of the house; the length of the grass on your lawn; whether you may rent out a room in the house to a non-family member; substituting a crushed-stone driveway for the current cement or paved driveway – or the reverse; the extent and type of holiday decorations allowed on the house and between what dates; a special permit to cut down brush an low-hanging tree branches in your back yard and then create a small fire to dispose of them; and even the “allowable paint colors” for the outside of your house. BUT you thought that you OWNED the house and land, so WHY can you NOT do what you wish with the house and land (especially if the mortgage is completely paid off? Just HOW did the local, state and federal governments gain so much control over your house and land? Once again, the answer is by your signature on the CONTRACT you signed when you bought the house and land. I believe that the ONLY state that allows true ownership (“allodial title”) of land and a house is Texas (via restrictions placed on the Texas and federal governments when Texas was being an changed from an independent, republic/nation to formally joining the U.S. as a state within the Union. But even in Texas, but such land and houses with “allodial titles” are becoming properties are rather rare. The only other exceptions are lands granted to American Indian tribes by treaty; and by houses and land long ago established by land grants from the British monarchy, then placed in a Trust and kept within the same family generation after generation. So, if you STILL have true “ownership” to your house and land (as opposed to “equitable title” or “right of use”), try NOT paying your property taxes! Not to long thereafter, your house and lad will be seized by government and sold at auction to pay those property taxes.
So, what do houses, land and cars have to do with your children and interference in their lives by people outside your immediate family? Again, by your signature on the “Application for a Birth Certificate” for your newborn baby, you signed a CONTRACT waiving your natural rights of ownership of your child, granting the state true “ownership” of that child, and leaving you with only “equitable title” (“right of use”) for that child. This that child is owned by your state, but as the “user” of that child, you have a legal, contractual obligation to feed and take care of the state’s property – the child. (A fairly good analogy is LEASING a car: you have a contractual right to use that car, but you must maintain it and make repairs as necessary.
One must remember that: 1.) a valid CONTRACT is an agreement voluntarily entered into with full disclosure by both parties; 2.) when you enter into a CONTRACT with someone (whether written, verbal, implied or presumed), your natural rights under the Common Law and guaranteed by the Constitution no longer apply. An ancient Roman maxim of laws states, “The contract is the law of the case.”
OATH: An oath is the basis of all law. An oath is a CONTRACT.
George Armstrong Custer (cadet at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point):
George Custer’s career as a soldier almost ended at West Point. As new cadet he committed some minor infraction (I believe it was visiting a local tavern when he was supposed to be on-campus.) He was charged with this offense and was tried by court-martial, which is a specialized form of Maritime-Admiralty law, now called the “Uniform Code of Military Justice” (UCMJ). The witnesses were stacked against him and he seemed sure to be found “guilty” for which the required punishment was dismissal from the U.S. Military Academy.
When one of the hearing officers mentioned that he had signed a contract with the U.S. Military stating that he would obey all its rules, George stated that he had NEVER signed any such contract. The court-martial fell into confusion and was delayed for several days while Custer’s records could be located and brought into court. Indeed, Custer was correct: he had never signed such a contract and was therefore NOT bought by military law. The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the court-martial. He continued on at West Point, but only after he signed the contract placing him under Military law.
Karl Lentz has a very interesting story. His three young children were seized by “Child Protective Services” (CPS) and placed in separate foster homes for over 6 years. Mr. Lentz went through many lawyers and several hundred thousand dollars in legal fees, with no success. As these 6 years passed Mr. Lentz began to study the law on his own time, going back to earlier Common Law traditions in Britain and later in the American colonies and the United States of America. To his surprise, he discovered that the Common Law is still today the primary law in Britain and the U.S.; and supersedes all legislated acts (statutes, code, regulations, ordinances, by-laws, etc.). In both Britain and the U.S. the ONLY three types of law allowed are the Common Law; Equity law (legislated law, which is an “offer to contract” needing your individual CONSENT); and Maritime-Admiralty law (law-of-the-sea), which is Commercial law also requiring a contract..
Lentz also learned that as recently as 1973 even the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the superiority of the Common Law over all other types of law: “The judgment of a court of record [a court operating under the Common Law only; NO statutes allowed] whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] would be. It is as conclusive on this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it.” U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)] In short, once a “court of record” (which by definition means a court operating under the Common Law), NO other court may question that Common Law court’s decision – NOT even the U.S. Supreme Court. [For additional information of a “court of record” and “jurisdiction”, please refer to Addendum #1 below.]
Lentz questioned under what authority the state (specifically the state agency called “Child Protective Services” (CPS) could seize his 3 children. The answer was unexpected: by signing the “Application for a Birth Certificate” while each child was still in the hospital after being born, Lentz and his wife had created a CONTRACT between themselves and the state. That contract gave the state true ownership of the children, leaving Lentz and his wife on “Equity Title” – that is, “Title of Use”. As long as the state felt that Lentz and his wife were taking “proper” care of the 3 children (who were now the state’s property), the state would allow Lentz to enjoy the “use of the state’s property” – his children.
However, only Lentz’s first 2 children had Birth Certificates. Lentz and his wife had never filled in or signed an “Application for a Birth Certificate” for their third child. Therefore, Lentz had no contract with the state regarding his third child and retained sole ownership (with his wife) of that third child. Lentz prepared his legal arguments on paper, then filed them with the court, establishing his OWN “court of record” operating under the Common Law. Once arriving in court, Lentz maintained his Common Law jurisdiction, despite the many attempts by the court to gain equity or Maritime-Admiralty jurisdiction. In essence, there were TWO courts operating simultaneously within the same court room: Lentz’s “court of record” (under the Common Law); and the judges attempts to gain jurisdiction as either an Equity court or Maritime-Admiralty court. Whenever the “judge” asked Lentz a question, Lentz replied repeatedly but simply. “It is all explained thoroughly in my documents, so I have nothing to add. I want my property returned to me immediately”. – meaning his third child. By maintaining HIS Common Law jurisdiction as a true “court of record” within the court room, Lentz was denying the “judge” the use of any statutes, regulations, etc. – all of which require a contract. And since there was NO contract (NO Birth Certificate for his third child), the state had no jurisdiction over this third child either under Equity law or Maritime-Admiralty law. The attorney and staff members of “Child Protective Services” (CPS) went to great lengths to discredit Lentz, but Lentz DEMANDED that the “judge” tell them to “shut up”, since neither the CPS lawyer or staff had any standing in the case under the Common Law – UNLESS they are sworn in under oath (a type of contract) as witnesses and testify in their “private capacities” (NOT as state officials) about their first-hand knowledge of the case, while assuming total and unlimited commercial liability on their parts. By assuming total and unlimited commercial liability, they would NOT be covered by any type of “qualified immunity” backed by a BOND purchased for them by the state.
Again and again, Lentz answered any and all questions by stating, repeatedly but simply. “It is all explained thoroughly in my documents, so I have nothing to add. I want my property returned to me immediately”. – meaning his third child. The “judge” was backed into a corner and finally ordered the immediate release of Lentz’s third child.
Lentz later revoked the Birth Certificates (as fraudulently obtained contracts) of his two other children and would likewise force the court to return them to their parents as well. If Lentz later chose to sue CPS, the CPS lawyer and staff would be “on their own” as private individuals, with no immunity, money or support from the state. Any law suit filed against them by Lentz would certainly have taken place in a true “court of record” operating under the Common Law, with a trial by jury of 12 people. The jury would act as the Tribunal and thus ONLY the jury could issue any orders, rulings or decisions. The “judge” would be required to act SOLELY as an administrator and could issue NO decisions or orders at all. Further NO statutes could be introduced and NO attorney would be allowed to “represent” another individual – each individual would be required to “present” himself (NOT “represent” himself) to the court and testify under oath (a contract) in his “private capacity” (NOT as a government employee) and assume total and unlimited commercial liability for anything he did or said. Given that CPS held his children for over six years and Lentz had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on attorney’s fees alone, it is certain that if the jury ruled for Lentz, the CPS lawyer and staff could have been facing millions of dollars in damages payable to Lentz. And again, as stated above, the judgment of a “Court of Record” tribunal operating under Common Law is absolutely final (where either the plaintiff by counter-claim or a jury acts as the tribunal) and can NOT be questioned or over-turned by any statutory or constitutional court in the land; NOT even by the U.S. Supreme Court. And if the CPS lawyer and staff refused or were unable to pay, Lentz could easily have established “commercial liens” on them, in effect “freezing” ALL their assets until they paid him or for 99 years, whichever came first.
While this case received little coverage in the American media, in Britain Lentz’s story went “viral”. Each year in Britain tens of thousands of youths are seized from their parents’ homes and many are sent to “youth rehabilitation centers” which, in fact, are more like Charles Dickens’ “work houses” where these youths are worked very long hours under appalling conditions for little or no pay. Contacted by one woman whose children had been seized, Lentz was so appalled that he traveled to Britain to speak with her. Lentz prepared the necessary paperwork according to the Common Law in Britain, then proceeded with some witnesses to go to the “Queen’s Bench” – a type of Common Law court that is required to hear all cases on demand. By the time they reached the Queen’s Bench, it was night, the court was closed, and they were refused entry by the police guards. Lentz demanded that the ranking police guard contact the chief justice inside and that they be allowed to present their case immediately. Remarkably within a few minutes the police guards returned, opened the gates and doors, and most politely escorted them into a court room. (The police later told Lentz that they had NEVER witnessed anything similar!) What Lentz knew (and the police guards did NOT know) was that the Queen’s Bench is the PEOPLE’S COURT and is required to be opened on demand by any individual 24 hours a day. Lentz presented the woman’s case “demanding the release of her property”. The justice immediately ordered the release of that woman’s children, to be returned to her at the greatest possible speed.
Now, to return to the incident of the “nosey neighbor” and the seemingly watchful, but neglectful Nanny, Nikki, and the mother who allowed her children to play outside in their backyard by themselves. The neighbor woman in the above article had NO lawful (the Common Law), legal (Equity law) or contractual (Maritime-Admiralty/Commercial law) right to interfere with the nanny Nicki regarding the child’s crying or with the children playing outside in their own backyard partially unsupervised. HOWEVER, the police did possess the POWER (NOT the “right”, but only the “power” granted by their office as agents of the state) to look into the welfare of the children. Why? As explained above, when the parents signed the “Application for a Birth Certificate” at the hospital after each child’s birth, the parents were voluntarily entering into a CONTRACT with the state. Through this contract, the parents gave true “ownership” of their children to the state (so the children became the state’s property), while the parents retained only “equity title” (the “right of use”) of their children. And as the true “owners” of the children, the state (here, the police), like the owners of ANY property, have the right to check up on the condition of its property. In short, by signing an “Application for a Birth Certificate”, a parent waives ownership rights of his child under the Common Law; and gives those ownership rights to the state, placing the child under the Maritime-Admiralty (commercial law; contract law) jurisdiction of the state. This contract explains why your young children may be seized by “Child Protective Services” (CPS) –or whatever name the agency uses I your state – and placed in foster homes WITHOUT a trial by jury (as would be required if the court was operating under the Common Law and the U.S. Constitution). The CONTRACT you signed as the “Application for a Birth Certificate” gives the state true “ownership” of your child under Maritime-Admiralty (commercial law, contract law) jurisdiction.
Karl Lentz has numerous VIDEOS on www.YouTube.com , although some are a bit painful to watch, as he rambles on a times and/or goes off on tangents. My one criticism of Mr. Lentz is that he is short on the theory and history on Common Law, but is excellent regarding its application in court.
Bill Thornton probably has the BEST web site on the Common Law ( www.1215.org ). He covers the theory, history and practical applications of the Common Law in today’s courts, with many SAMPLE DOCUMENTS – all for FREE !!!! His web site contains many Gigabytes of information which one could study for years!
In addition, Bill Thornton has allowed many of his “lectures” (teaching sessions) to be videotaped and placed on www.YouTube.com . Some of these lectures are 8 hours long, but the VIDEOS are broken down into HUNDREDS of shorter sessions. They are all fantastic! Plus he has as great sense of humor!
John-Henry Hill, M.D. at: http://JohnHenryHill.Wordpress.com It contains a large number of well-researched essays on the Common Law and other related topics. (I call them essays, but some contains as many as 180 pages, so a few are, in point of fact, actually books.) They contain research from literally thousands of law articles, hopefully saving readers a great deal of time doing their own research on hundreds of web sites.
The topic of JURISDICTION has filled numerous volumes and is too complex to discuss here. Suffice it to say that there are two relevant ancient maxims in law, “If you fail to object, you have consented.” and “A presumption NOT rebutted becomes a fact in law.” for that particular case currently before any court. It is a matter of right that one may demand to be tried in a “court of record”, which by definition means that the court must proceed according to the Common Law (NOT statutory law). The only way that a court can suspend that right is by the prior agreement of the parties. For tactical reasons the state prefers to proceed according to statutory law rather than common law. The only way it can do that is to obtain the prior agreement from the parties. That is the primary (but hidden) purpose of the arraignment procedure. During arraignment the administrative-statutory court offers the “Defendant” three choices for pleading (guilty, not guilty, nolo contendre). But each of these three choices leads to the same jurisdiction, namely statutory jurisdiction, NOT Common Law jurisdiction. That is to say, in an administrative-statutory jurisdiction, the question to be decided is whether or not the statute was violated; NOT whether another man suffered injury and the Common Law violated. In a true “Court of Record” (a Common Law court – a true judicial court), the man brought before the tribunal is called the “Accused”. And he may plead using the term “Innocent”, since under Common Law, the accused is “innocent until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers.” Further, by filing a counter-claim challenging the jurisdiction of the court, the “accused” (called the “defendant” by the administrative-statutory court), the accused can become the “plaintiff” with the judge and court personnel becoming the “defendants”. And under Common Law the plaintiff, the man as a sovereign can preside over his own court – it becomes YOUR court in which YOU act as the Tribunal (decider of facts and law, thus BOTH judge and jury). The judge becomes merely an administrator in YOUR court and is NOT allowed to make any rulings or impose sanctions (such as fines or detention). If the judge decides to issue rulings or sanctions, YOU as the tribunal can simply written judicial orders (called “writs”) to invalidate the judge’s actions. The new defendant’s – the judge and other court personnel – sole option is to request a jury to act as the tribunal (decider of facts and law). Thus, either you act as the tribunal in your court or a jury acts as the tribunal in your court. Finally, the judgment of a “Court of Record” tribunal operating under Common Law is absolutely final (where either the plaintiff by counter-claim or a jury acts as the tribunal) and can NOT be questioned or over-turned by any statutory or constitutional in the land. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the superior authority of a true “Court of Record”. Whether it be an appellate or supreme court – including the U.S. Supreme Court! – NO court can overturn the judgment of a “Court of Record” tribunal.
COURT OF RECORD
The definition of a true “Court of Record” is very different from the idea most commonly held by the public, as well as some attorneys and judges. A court that keeps records and minutes of court sessions is NOT necessarily a “Court of Record”.
COURT: The person and suit of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 318.
COURT: An agency of the sovereign created by it directly or indirectly under its authority, consisting of one or more officers, established and maintained for the purpose of hearing and determining issues of law and fact regarding legal rights and alleged violations thereof, and of applying the sanctions of the law, authorized to exercise its powers in the course of law at times and places previously determined by lawful authority. [Isbill v. Stovall, Tex.Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d 1067, 1070; Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 425]
COURT OF RECORD: To be a court of record a court must have four characteristics, and may or may not have a fifth. They are:
- A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it [that is, independently of the judge] [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
Proceeding according to the course of common law [NOT acts, statutes, and codes] [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]C. Its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231]
D. Has authority and power to fine or imprison for contempt. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
E. Generally (but not necessarily) possesses a seal. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
COURT NOT OF RECORD: Those courts of inferior dignity, which have no power to fine or imprison, and in which the proceedings are not enrolled or recorded. 3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.
Therefore, a true “Court of Record” is a court which is required to meet the following criteria:
1. generally, but not necessarily, has a seal
2. power to fine or imprison for contempt
3. keeps a record of the proceedings [a “transcript” is NOT a “record”]
4. proceeds according to the common law (NOT acts, statutes or codes)
5. the tribunal (the decision-making entity) is independent of the magistrate (judge); under Common Law the tribunal can consist of a fully-empowered jury of 12 people from the community who have the authority and power to judge BOTH the LAW and the FACTS of the case OR the tribunal can be the individual sovereign man himself as the Plaintiff. The “accused” or the “defendant” can NOT be the tribunal, unless he files a counterclaim in which event he becomes the counter-plaintiff. Consequently, any court in which the government-appointed judge acts as the tribunal by his issuance of rulings (instead of acting solely as magistrate) by his issuance of rulings AND/OR does not proceeding according to Common Law AND/OR involves acts, statutes, codes and their derivatives, CANNOT be a true “court of record”, but instead becomes a “court not of record”.
Any jurisdiction which has the lawful authority and power to fine and imprison for contempt is a court of record. Salk. 200; Bac. Ab. Fines and Amercements, A. Courts which do not lawfully possess this authority and power are not courts of record – instead, they are called “courts of no record” or “courts not of record”. Of great importance is that in a true Court of Record, the government-appointed judge is a magistrate and is NOT the tribunal, that is, he only directs the proceedings but can issue NO rulings or decisions. A “court of record” is a court of law which retains written records of its proceedings and which has the ability to fine or imprison. William Blackstone wrote, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 3: “A court of record is that where acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled in parchment for a perpetual memorial and testimony; which rolls are called records of the court, and are of such high and supereminent authority that their truth is not to be called in question.” their truth is not to be called in question.” Holdsworth, in his A History of English Law, Volume V, wrote, “It is the infallibility of its formal record which is the earliest mark of a court of record. But gradually the court of record developed other characteristics. Its record was kept upon a parchment roll. The method of questioning its decisions was a writ of error, while the method of questioning the decisions of courts not of record was a writ of false judgment. It [a court of record] alone could fine and imprison and this characteristic … is its most important characteristic at the present day.” Holdsworth, W. S., A History of English Law, Volume V (London: Methueun & Co., 1924), pages 157-158.
ONLY a Plaintiff can assume the position of a sovereign in a Court Of Record (Common Law Court); thus, if a man is accused of some “crime”, he MUST file a COUNTER-CLAIM, usually based on JURISDICTION issues, in which you are the PLAINTIFF.
A true “Court of Record” deals with LAW (common law) and JUSTICE; and NOT with legislated acts, statutes or codes.An administrative-legislative court (most courts today) deals with Statutes, Acts, Codes and Regulations enacted by a legislature and is a “Court Not of Record”; and NOT a true “Court of Record”.HOWEVER, unless the accused man openly challenges the JURISDICTION of an administrative-legislative court via a counterclaim, the accused implicitly agrees and consents to the jurisdiction of the administrative-legislative court, thereby waiving ALL of his Natural rights under Common Law and his natural rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. That is why, when the accused man attempts to discuss his natural rights or Constitutional rights in court, the government-appointed judge often tells the accused to “sit down and shut up!” and even that “the Constitution does not apply here”. Since the man implicitly consented to the jurisdiction of the administrative-legislative court and thereby WAIVED all of his Natural rights as a sovereign and his rights guaranteed by the Constitutional, the man is bound by the rules of the administrative-legislative court. So, as odd as it may sound, the government-appointed judge is correct in saying that!
Definitions in Law by Gregory Allan
Abandoned: Any thing to which no one will claim a right.
Acceptance: An oath, [Contract] whereby one agrees to take on a duty or a right. One may only accept a right if entitled to it by agreement. [Contract]
Agency: A contractual relationship between two or more parties, where some parties, the agents, are given authority by other parties, the principals, to act on the principals’ behalf. The scope of authority granted is limited by the terms of the contract, and further limited by the rights of the principal. No agent may ever exercise authority in excess of the rights of his principal.
Certificate: An oath, [contract] professing that a statement is true.
Claim: An oath, professing that a duty is owed, usually by a party other than the one making the claim. Claims set the basis for a controversy, without which, law-forums normally cannot secure jurisdiction.
Commerce: The exchange of oaths. [Contracts]
Common Law: A body of oaths [contracts ]which are common between a specific group of people. Within any specific group, those oaths can be said to be public law. From the perspective of anyone outside a given group, the oaths of the group would be private law.
Duty: An action which a man has given his oath to do. The exercise of law.
Escheat: The right of a finder to any thing which is otherwise abandoned. The converse right of due-process demands that anyone to whom the right might belong must first be given fair-notice and opportunity to exercise his claim.
Jurisdiction: Literally, “to speak one’s law.” Every man begins his life with the inherent right (free-agency is from God) to make his own oaths, or to not make them. When one man assigns to another his own right to bind himself in an oath, thus allowing the second man’s word to obligate the first, then the first man has granted jurisdiction, and the second has assumed it.
Law: Oath; contract; agreement; covenant; promise; as distinguished from “laws of nature,” such as gravity, which are not laws, but are “facts.” Law can only be made by a “meeting of the minds” between sentient beings. [Thus: all law is by mutually agreed-upon contract.]
Person: Any party [by Oath or Contract] to a given body of law. A man may be a person under one body of law but, not having given certain oaths, not be a person under another.
Registration: The act of making a record for the purpose of giving notice of a particular fact or intention to one or more parties, and granting jurisdiction to the law-forum which holds the record to decide any disputes which may arise from the subject of said registration.
Right: A power received by way of an oath [Contract], and dependent upon the terms of said oath. Breach-of-contract (failure to perform a duty) will often divest a man of any rights he may have under that contract, but may not relieve him of his duties. A man may have rights in common with others, but his own rights are to the exclusion of others. A man’s rights are his property. If you cannot identify the specific contract whereby you came into the possession of a right, and the duties which you must fulfill to continue your enjoyment of that right, then you probably do not have that right at all.
Surety: An oath [Contract], promising to fulfill an obligation in the event of a damage, injury, or breach-of-contract. Also a person who has given an oath of surety.
Title: From entitlement. Evidence of a right.[derived from an oath-contract]
What is a PLEDGE or OATH?
Most people, including the police, have absolutely NO IDEA what taking a PLEDGE (OATH) actually means in terms of its lawful and legal implications. Indeed, because the Common Law is seldom taught in law schools today, most attorneys and lower court judges have NO idea, either!
The ancient system of PLEDGES or OATHS, going back over two thousand years, is actually the basis of the American LEGAL system of ACTS (STATUTES), which must be distinguished from our system of LAW. The United States of America, Britain and most former British colonies still operate under COMMON LAW which is based on the customs of the people and past judicial rulings (Stare Decisis) and NOT on legislated statutes (acts). Under Common Law, each man is a sovereign over the state (whether federal, state or local government), so a man’s actions are LAWFUL as long as he does not cause injury to another man or his property – statutes do NOT apply. Statues (acts enacted by a legislature) apply to a sovereign man ONLY if he consents to their jurisdiction over him or if he has entered into a CONTRACT. Thus, true LAW is the Common Law; only Common Law determines what is LAWFUL. Statutes do NOT determine what is LAWFUL; statutes determine what is LEGAL (derived from the word “LEGislate”), NOT what is LAWFUL. Similarly, courts that operate under legislated statutes are “legislative or administrative courts” operating under Commercial Law; they are NOT true “judicial courts of law”.
When a man PLEDGES (SWEARS, AFFIRMS, TAKES AN OATH) to something, he is, in fact, voluntarily entering into a CONTRACT. By doing so, he has agreed to be bound by COMMERCIAL LAW (Admiralty-Maritime Law, Contract Law, now called the Uniform Commercial Code or UCC) in matters related to this contract) thereby waiving his Common Law rights in the matter.
When a witness in court “swears to tell the truth”, he has just entered into a CONTRACT with the judge and the court. If he then lies, he can be prosecuted under Commercial Law for “perjury” – which literally means “breaking an OATH or PLEDGE”. In short, he has broken the contract and is subject to Commercial Law jurisdiction and NOT to Common Law jurisdiction. If he declined to take this pledge or oath, he could NOT be prosecuted for perjury.
When you sign your tax filing to the IRS each year (1040 Form), you are in fact taking an OATH (PLEDGE); on need simply read the sentence below the line for your signature. Indeed, when income taxes were first introduced, one’s IRS tax filing required an accompanying notarized affidavit – itself a contract to tell the truth. Thus, if you give false information on your tax filing, but do NOT sign it, you can NOT be prosecuted for perjury.
If you are stopped for “speeding” while driving your car, the officer will ask you to sign the ticket. By signing it, you have taken a pledge or oath to appear in court (unless you simply admit guilt and pay the fine ahead of time). In short, by signing the ticket, you signed a CONTRACT to appear in the court operating under Commercial Law jurisdiction – which is why the police can later arrest you if you fail to appear. The police can arrest you and you can be prosecuted for breaking the contract to appear, BECAUSE you signed the ticket (a contract)! In fact, anything you say to the police during that traffic stop “can and will be used against you” – and NOTHING you say which would be favorable to your case can be used in court to help you! (Under the Rules of Evidence, anything you said that might help you would be ruled as “hearsay” by the judge.). By simply talking with the police, whether while in your car or on the street, you have created a contract by mutual consent whereby you waive your Common Law rights. And when you finally arrive in court, if you enter a “plea”, you have just consented (as a contract) to be under Commercial Law jurisdiction, which is why the judge issue a “summary judgment” and fine or imprison you without benefit of a trial by jury. By entering a “plea”, you consented to the court’s jurisdiction as a non-judicial “administrative court” under Commercial Law and instantly transformed yourself from the “accused” into a “defendant” (which is a DEBTOR). You have waived your right under the Common Law to a “trial by jury” in a true “judicial court” – a “court of record” operating under the Common Law. And even if you are granted a “jury trial” – which is NOT the same as “trial by jury” – the verdict of the jury is only “advisory” upon the judge, who may either accept or reject it as he chooses! Conversely, the verdict of the jury in a “trial by jury” in a true “court of record” under Common Law jurisdiction is binding and can NOT be questioned by anyone – even the Supreme Court.
The PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE is likewise the taking of an OATH; creating a binding contract with the state. But, as is true for ANY contract, the pledge must be voluntary, with both parties to the contract receiving some benefit (called “consideration” in Commercial Law). The Supreme Court (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943) that public schools students are not required to recite the pledge; and later ruled that students are not required to stand while the Pledge is being recited (Holloman ex rel. Holloman v. Harland, 370 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2004). The reasoning of the Court was that, under LAW (the Common Law) and the Constitution, requiring a student to recite the Pledge (or even stand up while it is being recited by others) was a violation of free speech and free assembly guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. And speaking and associating with other people (or choosing NOT to speak or associate with others) is based on the right under the Common Law to contract – or not to contract.
The justices of the Supreme Court know this fact, as they are required to operate FIRST under Common Law – that is why they are called “justices” and NOT “judges”! The Common Law is the superior law. ONLY if the accused has waived his right to Common Law jurisdiction can the courts proceed under Equity (Civil) Law or Commercial Law (both via legislated STATUTES).Unlike pre-World War 2 when people knew Common Law procedures very well, today most people have NO knowledge of Common Law and the rights and procedures available to us. Instead, we unknowingly waive most of our rights and become subject to statutes under the jurisdiction of Commercial Law courts.
Of course, since children are considered incompetent to contract under Common Law (and later by statute, so-called “statutory law”), their reciting the Pledge of Allegiance has NO binding effect under Commercial Law, anyway. We, as supposed adults, should know better! We should take the responsibility, as our ancestors did, to “know the law” – NOT the statutes and regulations – but the LAW itself: the Common Law, as our ancestors did.
“He, who would be deceived, let him.” — ancient Roman maxim of law
The concept of swearing an oath is extremely important in English and American law. In old England, “swearing an oath” or “pledging” was considered a contract, provided “consideration” was exchanged between the parties to the oath – such as allegiance and rent to one’s landlord in exchange the use of land and protection. Breaking that oath or contract was considered a “dishonoring” of the offended party and created a “cause of action” for the offended, who then had the right to seek remedy in court. [One should be cognizant of the fact that all contract-commercial law is based on the system of “honor” and “dishonor”.] (In American courts today a man who swears an oath under penalty of perjury has created a contract between himself and the court – he has pledged to tell the truth in exchange for the legal protection of the court.) Prior to swearing allegiance, the English freeman possessed all the rights and protections of Natural Law (often called Fundamental Law) and Common Law; he was NOT subject to the rules (“private law”) of the landlord. However, having sworn an oath to the landlord, the man became a tenant and “subject” of his landlord or “lord”. In short, by contract (i.e., what we now call “commercial law”) a freeman would surrender some of his Common Law rights in exchange for the privilege of farming the lord’s land[i], thereby making himself a “subject” of the lord – that is, the tenant was is “Sovereignty in government” is most properly interpreted as the individual man being subject to the private rules of conduct (“private law”) set forth by the lord, but ONLY because he knowingly and freely consented, i.e., “consent of the governed”. We see clearly that “consent of the governed” meant each individual man’s consent; NOT some ethereal type of collective consent.
(1) The 9th Amendment guaranteed the natural RIGHTS possessed by the individual man (the people), whether or not listed in the Constitution or Bill of Rights (amendments 1-10). Thus, the 9th Amendment is an affirmation of individual sovereignty.
(2) The 10th Amendment guaranteed the POWERS reserved to the States or the people (as individuals) provided that:
(a) such powers had not been delegated to the federal government in the Constitution; OR
(b) such powers had not been prohibited to it by the States.
(3) While a POWER derived from a right may be delegated and the exercise of a RIGHT temporarily waived, a man – as an individual sovereign – NEVER waives or gives up possession of his natural rights.
While item (2)(a) above – the issue of “delegated powers” – is often brought up in the courts, the issue of “powers prohibited by the States” is often ignored in terms of the powers of a single sovereign State. As the papers of the Federalists and anti-Federalists make clear, the “powers prohibited by the States” clause affirms the right of each State to prohibit the exercise of a particular power by the federal government – in short, what is currently being termed in newspapers as the “state nullification of federal statutes” under the concept of each State’s sovereignty over the federal government. However, it should be remembered that each individual man forever has retained all of his natural rights and that, as an individual sovereign, his rights are NOT subject to any limitations by government under any circumstances. He may temporarily delegate some POWERS to a government, but as an individual sovereign with all his RIGHTS intact, a man may revoke from government those previously delegated POWERS at any time for any reason at his own will. As an individual sovereign (like a king), the man’s wish becomes the law. (derived from the English kings: “Your wish is my command.”; and the king’s wish was a command or decree of LAW. Or as King John said, “The Law is in my mouth.”) Once again, “The very meaning of ‘sovereignty’ is that the decree of the sovereign makes law.” American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047 and “To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its powers unless it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head.” [Merrion et al., DBA Merrion & Bayless, et al. v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe et al. (1982) 455 U.S. 130, 102 S. Ct. 894, 71 L. Ed. 2d 21, 50 U.S.L.W. 4169 pp. 144
“It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.” [whether or not the “United States” means the federal government as a corporate TRUST (definition 2 above) established by the Constitution and the limited territory over which it exercises exclusive sovereign authority OR as (definition #3 above) a private, foreign municipal corporation] Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36,(1873)
As discussed above, each man is an “individual sovereign” and the People, as individuals or as a group, are sovereign. The People are not subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government, even though they are born in the United States. The 14th Amendment attempts through confusing language to invert this relationship. One of the qualifications to be a “citizen of the United States” is that one must be born or naturalized in the United States. Another qualification is that one must be, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof. [of the United States]” It is not possible to be a citizen of the United States without BOTH being born or naturalized in the United States AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But, if you are born or naturalized, and if you are subject to the jurisdiction, then you automatically qualify as a citizen of the United States.
From the point of view of the federal enforcers of federal acts or statutes, the qualifications are worked in reverse. They reverse-interpret the 14th Amendment as incorrectly meaning that if you say and/or do not deny that you are a citizen of the United States, then that automatically means you are totally subject to its jurisdiction [and have been born or naturalized]. This opinion is not shared by the judicial branch. See 14 C.J.S. 426, 430 (Corpus Juris Secundum):
The particular meaning of the word “citizen” is frequently dependent on the context in which it is found, and the word must always be taken in the sense which best harmonizes with the subject matter in which it is used. “One may be considered a citizen for some purposes and not a citizen for other purposes, as, for instance, for commercial purposes, and not for political purposes. So, a person may be a citizen in the sense that as such he is entitled to the protection of his life, liberty, and property, even though he is not vested with the suffrage or other political [legislated] rights.
 Cal.–Prowd v. Gore, 2 Dist. 207 P. 490. 57 C.A. 458.
 Cal.–Prowd v. Gore. 2 Dist. 207 P. 490. 57 C.A. 458.
La.–Lepenser v Griffin, 83 So. 839, 146 La. 584
N.Y.–Union Hotel Co. v. Hersee, 79 N.Y. 454
 U.S.–The Friendschaft, N.C., 16 U.S. 14, 3 Wheat. 14, 4 L.Ed. 322
–Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64, 2 Cranch 64, 2 L.Ed. 208
Md.–Risewick v. Davis, 19 Md. 82
Mass.–Judd v. Lawrence, 1 Cush 531
R.I.–Greeough v. Tiverton Police Com’rs, 74 A 785, 30 R.I. 212
 Mass.–Dillaway v. Burton, 153 N.E. 13, 256 Mass. 568″
In any case, if you fail to object to the government’s view of citizenship, then the federal government will presume that you are subject to the acts-statutes of the federal government. That means you have waived your powers derived from your rights, and now possess only privileges as granted by the federal government. Therefore, the most practical method for a man to retain his rights as a individual sovereign is to reject the title of “citizen” and to assert explicitly that one is NOT a “citizen of the United States” or a “citizen of a State”; and that one does NOT consent to federal jurisdiction and waives all benefits and privileges resulting from being a “citizen of the United States” or a “citizen of a State”.
Maxims of Law re: OATHS
Repellitur a sacramento infamis. An infamous person is denied the right to make an oath.
Sacramentum habet in se tres comites,-veritatem, justiiiam, et judicium; veritus habenda est in jurato; justitia et justicium in judice. An oath has in it three components: truth, justice, and judgment; truth in the party swearing; justice and judgment in the judge administering the oath.
Juramentum est indivisibile; et non est admittendum in parte verum et in parte falsam. An oath is indivisible; it is not to be held as partly true and partly false.
Jusjurandum inter alios factum nec nocere nec prodesse debet. An oath made between other parties ought neither to hurt nor profit.
Non est arctius vinculum inter homines quam jusjurandum. There is no stronger bond between men than an oath.
Jurato creditur in judicio. He who makes an oath is to be believed in a judicial proceeding. Jusjurandi forma verbis differt, re convenit; hunc enim sensum habere debet: ut Deus invocetur. The form of taking an oath differs in language, agrees in meaning; for it ought to have this meaning: that the deity is invoked.
Perjuri sunt qui servatis verbis juramenti decipiunt aures eorum qui accipiunt. They are perjured, who, preserving the words of an oath, deceive the ears of those who receive it.
Omne sacramentum debet esse de certa scientia. Every oath ought to be founded on certain knowledge. [In other words, if you take an oath, what you say must be the truth based on FACTS – “certain knowledge”.]
Sacramentum si fatuum fuerit, licet falsum, tamen non committit perrurium. A foolish oath, although false, does not give rise to perjury.
NISI PRIUS – to be avoided at all costs! “Nisi prius” is a Latin term. Individually, the words mean thus: “Prius” means “first.” For example, “Prius vitiis laboravimus, nunc legibus” means “We labored first with vices, now with laws.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition. “Nisi” means “unless.” Quoting from Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed.: “The word is often affixed as a kind of elliptical expression, to the words ‘rule,’ ‘order,’ ‘decree,’ ‘judgment,’ or ‘confirmation,’ to indicate that the adjudication spoken of is one which is to stand as valid and operative UNLESS the party affected by it shall appear and show cause against it, or take some other appropriate step to avoid it or procure its revocation.” A rule of procedure in courts is that if a party fails to object to something, then it presumed as a fact that he agrees to it. A nisi procedure is a procedure to which a person has failed to object (show cause) and therefore it follows that the person agrees to it. Or, conforming to the format in the preceding paragraph, a nisi prius procedure is a procedure to which a party agrees UNLESS he objects or shows cause. A “nisi prius” procedure is a procedure to which a party FIRST agrees UNLESS he objects. A “nisi prius court” is a court which will proceed UNLESS a party objects. The agreement to proceed is obtained from the parties first. A nisi procedure is a procedure to which a person has failed to object (show cause) and therefore it follows that the person agrees to it. Or, conforming to the format in the preceding paragraph, a nisi procedure is a procedure to which a party agrees UNLESS he objects or shows cause. It is a matter of right that one may demand to be tried in a court of record. By sheer definition, that means that the court must proceed according to the common law (not the statutory law). The only way that a court can suspend that right is by the prior agreement of the parties. For tactical reasons the state prefers to proceed according to statutory law rather than common law. The only way it can do that is to obtain the prior agreement from the parties. That is the primary (but hidden) purpose of the arraignment procedure. During arraignment the administrative-statutory court offers the “Defendant” three choices for pleading (guilty, not guilty, nolo contendre). But all three choices lead to the same jurisdiction, namely a statutory jurisdiction, not a common law jurisdiction. That is to say, in a administrative-statutory jurisdiction, the question to be decided is whether or not the statute was violated; NOT whether another man was injured and the common law violated. In a true “Court of Record” (a Common Law court – a true judicial court), the man brought before the tribunal is called the “Accused”. And he may plead using the term “Innocent”, since under Common Law, the accused is “innocent until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers.” The dictionary does not lie in its definition of a nisi prius court. But it does omit some important information. Namely, that it is a court that has been set up by prior agreement assumed because when the three statutory options [guilty, not guilty, nolo contendre] were presented to the defendant he chose one. He thus failed to enforce his right to be prosecuted in a court of record. Once the agreement (as evidenced in the arraignment proceeding) has been secured, the court proceeds under statutory authority. Now the court ceases to be a court of record and becomes a court of no record by prior lack of objection, i.e. by prior agreement implied by failure to object. Naturally, after securing the agreement, a nisi prius court can move on to examine the facts with a judge and jury, etc. etc.
Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) versus Common Law
“The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force, except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law.”
The Uniform Commercial Code recognizes the Common Law.
(UCC at 1-103.6)
“The Code cannot be read to preclude a Common Law action.”
(Last sentence of UCC 1-103.6)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ END OF ESSAY +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++