Common Law

[Pottapaug1938]

From time to time, as some of you know, I wander over to the Saving to Suitors and the Sui Juris forums to see the newest deranged rants from the inmates thereof. This afternoon, I saw a rant about the common law; and just out of curiosity I looked at the Wikipedia article on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

Since one feature of this rant was that it contained a few of the Latin legal maxims so beloved of sovruns, I especially liked this quite from Acree v. Republic of Iraq, 370 F.3d 41 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (Roberts, J., concurring):

"Reliance on old maxims is now deprecated."

Not that this will stop the sovruns and Suitors....

[Flatulating Bovine]

They seem to be operating off of their own definition of common law, not even any version found in the books. I have heard of them saying that common law is "the peoples law" which means roughly "what a sovrun wants it to mean at the time." In law practice I've seen idjits that claim when they violate correct procedure that they were following "common law procedures" which they believe are unwritten but somehow known to all.

[notorial dissent]

Pretty much got it in one. The Sovcit version of common law is a thing of pure and badly mangled fantasy having nothing to do with reality, under the heading of they do make it up as they go along.

[Flatulating Bovine]

I had never heard of sui juris forums before. After reading your post I went and googled it. Oh man, what a gold mine. That place has more unintentional high comedy going on than any other place on the net. It is almost hard to believe it is real; sort of like the flat earth society forums one gets the impression it is a bunch of phds laughing their asses off while they write that stuff. But no, they are serious...

A brief look down the first page and one comes to a thread on "revocation of birth certificate"

[Chados]

I once had the grandfather of this kind of "common law," thought, the "Common-Law Doctor of the Constitution," Mr. "E" himself, send me an autographed copy of his "Handbook of Freedom," in an attempt to educate me on the true "common law." It served...and serves...as a primer into exactly the kind of cognitive distortions that these folks indulge in. They really believe in this stuff, some of them, and that's the real tragedy.

There really are two kinds of sovereigns. There is the kind like "E," who have spent decades convincing themselves that only they really "get it" and all the rest of us haven't a clue (I feel sorry for these guys because they destroy their lives with this stuff), and then there are those cynical bastards who are just hitching a ride on the Grifter Express, leeching off the first category for all the money they can suck and then moving on to the next scam.

Of the first kind, there are also two kinds: The guys like "E", who are more dangerous to themselves than to anyone else (other than the other poor whackos that buy what they're selling and destroy their own lives in the process, perpetuating the cycle of sovereign sadness), and then there are the real dangerous whackjobs that blow up buildings and ambush cops.

[Pottapaug1938]

Here's another take on the common law, courtesy of "freedgerdes" on Planet Merrill/Saving to Suitors Club, in a forum on one's name being a form of property:

I understand that debt is the money of slaves, and have taken steps to redeem all FRN's tendered to me, thus I do not participate in the fraud of fractional reserve banking. My objective is to take control of my corporate identity, so I can protect in from further intrusion by political law. I do not need or want the Fed/Treasury nexus to be a party to all my contracts. I am not bankrupt, and am not responsible for the Federal (corporate) government's bankruptcy. Thus I do not intend to tolerate the state's lien on all my property, so they can pledge me, my assets, and my future earning power to their debts. I seek legal title as well as equitable title to my estate. Moreover, I seek to establish that I control my corporate PERSON, it does not control me, and may not be used by others to control me; the only authority I accept is common law.

The corporate trust granted by the state is intended to hold title to assets in my estate until such time as I can 'return from the missing/dead' and reclaim my estate. According to the revisions made by Charles II in 1666, upon my return the assets in the trust revert back to me, and I take my natural place as Executor of my estate. From that point on I can control with whom the trust contracts, and can Refuse for Cause any contracts which are not in my interest. The political/bankster cartel which has captured the US government machinery is in the late stages of empire, and is using Roman law (contracts) to control the economy and limit the liberties of the citizenry. Thus the switch from common law to Roman law in the Article I court system in 1933. These courts, which operate outside the Constitution, now rely on the contemporary definition of 'for the common good,' rather than the thousands of years of common law precedents. We now have a nation of men, rather than a nation of laws. We call this tyranny by the majority (democracy) as a marketing meme, but it is really tyranny by the insiders, ie, those who control the money supply.

For the first two hundred years Rome enjoyed the benefits of common law, and became the most prosperous city/nation in the world. But by the time of the crucifixion of Jesus, common law had been replaced by Roman law, that is, laws made by men, not the laws of God. As a result, the nation turned to empire, conquest, slavery, onerous taxes, and greatly reduced liberties for the citizens. Those who could fled, the rest were bankrupted, their estates confiscated by the state, and they were bonded (enslaved) to what had once been their own estates. Moral of the story: the application of common law results in prosperity for citizens and the state, but when men presume that they can write laws to suit temporal preferences, the social contract fails and civilization loses the benefits of peaceful cooperative endeavor. Thus we have a duty to ourselves and our progeny to resist Roman law, and to work tirelessly to restore the common law.

By your strategy of remaining 'in the fog,' and working from within the usufruct, accepting the status of user but not owner, you are confirming the Roman law and accepting the state's claim that they own 'you,' the corporate PERSON established by the trust granted by the state. These trusts were used extensively by the (empire) Romans; they would create a trust in the name of the slave, and put title to the slave's physical body into the trust, then buy and sell these trusts, illegally trafficking in living parts of God's creation, which they clearly did not own, but which laws made by men allowed. The Federal Reserve, through the 1933 bankruptcy action, seeks to re-establish that legal framework. I am merely searching for the best strategy to resist this effort by the cartel to eliminate common law and replace it with corporate law.

What is he smoking, and where can I get some?

[fortinbras]

They seem to be operating off of their own definition of common law, ...... which means roughly "what a sovrun wants it to mean at the time."

Amen!

[notorial dissent]

I concur with Flatulating Bovine on this one. It is nice to see that the clueless over at the house of word salad are as ignorant and unaware of history as they are of law and reality, at least they are consistent.